Atheist views on the environment.

[Amazonis]

Personally, i am extremely passionate about the environment, but i want to see what atheists think in general. Leave a comment when you vote.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I care enough about the environment where I'll recycle regularly, but it's not the number-one thought on my mind.

[openly68atheist]

As long as the air is see through and not black, or smoggy I don't care. I'm not going to go to the Amazon and tie my-self to a tree. My passion is finding Immortality here on earth through genetics, nanotechnology, Embryonic Stem Cells, Human cloning, Whole Body Transplants.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm lucky that I live in an apartment building with a recycling program. I know too many people who don't even bother recycling when it takes so little effort.

I feel that environmental damage is one of biggest problems that the US is not addressing at all. I think it's absurd that we refuse to sign the Kyoto Accord.

Rhinoq

[Acromnion]

our enviornment is very important, but like openly68atheist said, i'm not gonna tie myself to a tree either... i do my part recycling, and not wasting piddly stuff. the past 5 years i noticed a drastic change in weather and all that carp. (and yes there is a huge difference living in smoggy LA vs everywhere else i've been.) I'm concerned about the conditions my son is going to be living in 50 years from now, muchless his kids 100 years from now. And what is immortality if there is no world to survive it in? True, genetics and stem cell research and all that jazz can lengthen and improve our lifestyles, but what if we never had to worry about the health factors that cause us to be researching in those areas? I think its great that we have the capabilities to create and develope such marvels, but that is a huge cost to our enviornment too, factories and biotech labs create lots of workplace and enviornmental hazards. biohazard waste itself from there can be tremendous.

think of it this way, the enviornment is our home, where do you want to live when you retire?

[openly68atheist]

our enviornment is very important, but like openly68atheist said, i'm not gonna tie myself to a tree either... i do my part recycling, and not wasting piddly stuff. the past 5 years i noticed a drastic change in weather and all that carp. (and yes there is a huge difference living in smoggy LA vs everywhere else i've been.) I'm concerned about the conditions my son is going to be living in 50 years from now, muchless his kids 100 years from now. And what is immortality if there is no world to survive it in? True, genetics and stem cell research and all that jazz can lengthen and improve our lifestyles, but what if we never had to worry about the health factors that cause us to be researching in those areas? I think its great that we have the capabilities to create and develope such marvels, but that is a huge cost to our enviornment too, factories and biotech labs create lots of workplace and enviornmental hazards. biohazard waste itself from there can be tremendous.

think of it this way, the enviornment is our home, where do you want to live when you retire?
True, I will vote for people who want to take care of our enviroment and also those who are pro stem cells, both important causes but Immortality is a more pressing issue since I will probably live for another 80 yrs but the enviroment changes very slowly.

[Amazonis]

our enviornment is very important, but like openly68atheist said, i'm not gonna tie myself to a tree either... i do my part recycling, and not wasting piddly stuff. the past 5 years i noticed a drastic change in weather and all that carp. (and yes there is a huge difference living in smoggy LA vs everywhere else i've been.) I'm concerned about the conditions my son is going to be living in 50 years from now, muchless his kids 100 years from now. And what is immortality if there is no world to survive it in? True, genetics and stem cell research and all that jazz can lengthen and improve our lifestyles, but what if we never had to worry about the health factors that cause us to be researching in those areas? I think its great that we have the capabilities to create and develope such marvels, but that is a huge cost to our enviornment too, factories and biotech labs create lots of workplace and enviornmental hazards. biohazard waste itself from there can be tremendous.

think of it this way, the enviornment is our home, where do you want to live when you retire?
True, I will vote for people who want to take care of our enviroment and also those who are pro stem cells, both important causes but Immortality is a more pressing issue since I will probably live for another 80 yrs but the enviroment changes very slowly.
In 50 or so years America will be about as wealthy as Brazil. Countries like Brazil will be third world countrys again, and third world countrys will have dissapeard. This will happen because there are to many humans on earth, and we are using up our resources unsustainably. (The only reason it hasn't happend already is because we are living of borrowed time - the resources we consume now are not going to renew themselves for later use). Once this happens the worlds economy will fall, and their will not be enouph money to do all this scientific research anyway.

[NihilistThug]

The 'enviroment' has no value except as a resource. Get rid of the State and its meddling and all problems resolve either into private property rights (water/air pollution, 'overfishing' etc) or simply decline into aesthetic disagreement in which case I think you and your 'intrinsic values' can go to Hell. Mans survival is based on beating nature, which is perpetually trying to murder him, into some controlled and orderly shape. And unless the monkeys who believe in the magic of gods and politics get us killed beforehand, I'm sure some c36 nano-tube computers will be laughing hysterically at our incompetence and fear about the 'enviroment' as they live off of nuclear fire and keep animals only as a source of amusement - if at all.

[whoneedscience]

I agree that taking care of the environment is a necessary long term goal, but should not be placed ahead of good economic practices. In many cases, they are one and the same. Recycling is a perfect example. Many people think they are saving the environment when they recycle their beer cans, and while this is true to an extent, the economic reality is that energy is expensive and extracting aluminum from raw materials takes a lot more energy than just melting old cans. It's briliant propaganda on the part of aluminum companies to get people to recycle, as they save production costs and increase their own profit by making other people provide their resources.

The Kyoto Accord, on the other hand represents a major failure of technology and polotics. While many environmentalists attack the US for refusing to sign it, the economic pressure it would cause can only hurt everyone. Reducing emissions by such a small amount would be incredibly expensive right now and while it would be a great way for the government to spend money from the view of Keynesian macroeconomics (more money to engineers :) and eventually the rest of the population as well as a great investment), what we really need right now is worldwide economic pressure to make much more drastic steps. I believe that the recent surge in oil prices (remember when gas was just $1? I pay almost 3) could be the start of a process of nature simply taking its course. It may be incredibly naive, but the economy behaves just like any ecosystem, and has a tendency to hover right around its long term carrying capacity. The United States and most other developed countries show that this is happening. While world populations and environmental attrocities continue to grow, most of both are occuring in underdeveloped, undereducated countries. US forrests have been stable for over a century; we know that it makes economic sense not to destroy all of our valuable resources but instead to plant a new tree for every one we cut down. Many African and South American countries don't have the ability or understanding to prevent their forrests and other resources from being permanently wiped out.

I'm not saying that everything is peachy; we need to do a lot of work on creating renewable resources. Whether that's by developing solar or wind technologies or by switching to nuclear fission or potentially fusion with a fuel standard switch to hydrogen or ethanol remains to be seen, but it won't happen until the economic conditions are right and we shouldn't push it.

Plus, there's always Mars. It could go for some pretty serious global warming right about now.

[HMS Beagle]

The 'enviroment' has no value except as a resource.
The environment has no value as a habitat? How did you come to that conclusion?

[HMS Beagle]

As long as the air is see through and not black, or smoggy I don't care. I'm not going to go to the Amazon and tie my-self to a tree. My passion is finding Immortality here on earth through genetics, nanotechnology, Embryonic Stem Cells, Human cloning, Whole Body Transplants.
Assuming you achieve immortality, don't you rather hope you're ona habitable planet?

[Amazonis]

The 'enviroment' has no value except as a resource. Get rid of the State and its meddling and all problems resolve either into private property rights (water/air pollution, 'overfishing' etc) or simply decline into aesthetic disagreement in which case I think you and your 'intrinsic values' can go to Hell. Mans survival is based on beating nature, which is perpetually trying to murder him, into some controlled and orderly shape. And unless the monkeys who believe in the magic of gods and politics get us killed beforehand, I'm sure some c36 nano-tube computers will be laughing hysterically at our incompetence and fear about the 'enviroment' as they live off of nuclear fire and keep animals only as a source of amusement - if at all.
The environment has values as many things other than a resource. As a habitat it provides life for every living thing on this planet. You cannot view the environment as something there for your taking (thats going down the christian line of thinking).

We nead the environment for our survival, and therefore we must manage it better. Even if you have no moral attatchment to the environment, you still nead it there, because (as you said) it is an essential resouce. We nead to have the environment, even if it only be for resources.

Mans survival is not based on beating nature - we are nature. We can't live without nature, because everything we use comes from nature. We can't simply bite the hand that feads and expect to be fead tomorow.

[Amazonis]

I agree that taking care of the environment is a necessary long term goal, but should not be placed ahead of good economic practices. In many cases, they are one and the same. Recycling is a perfect example. Many people think they are saving the environment when they recycle their beer cans, and while this is true to an extent, the economic reality is that energy is expensive and extracting aluminum from raw materials takes a lot more energy than just melting old cans. It's briliant propaganda on the part of aluminum companies to get people to recycle, as they save production costs and increase their own profit by making other people provide their resources.

The Kyoto Accord, on the other hand represents a major failure of technology and polotics. While many environmentalists attack the US for refusing to sign it, the economic pressure it would cause can only hurt everyone. Reducing emissions by such a small amount would be incredibly expensive right now and while it would be a great way for the government to spend money from the view of Keynesian macroeconomics (more money to engineers :) and eventually the rest of the population as well as a great investment), what we really need right now is worldwide economic pressure to make much more drastic steps. I believe that the recent surge in oil prices (remember when gas was just $1? I pay almost 3) could be the start of a process of nature simply taking its course. It may be incredibly naive, but the economy behaves just like any ecosystem, and has a tendency to hover right around its long term carrying capacity. The United States and most other developed countries show that this is happening. While world populations and environmental attrocities continue to grow, most of both are occuring in underdeveloped, undereducated countries. US forrests have been stable for over a century; we know that it makes economic sense not to destroy all of our valuable resources but instead to plant a new tree for every one we cut down. Many African and South American countries don't have the ability or understanding to prevent their forrests and other resources from being permanently wiped out.

I'm not saying that everything is peachy; we need to do a lot of work on creating renewable resources. Whether that's by developing solar or wind technologies or by switching to nuclear fission or potentially fusion with a fuel standard switch to hydrogen or ethanol remains to be seen, but it won't happen until the economic conditions are right and we shouldn't push it.

Plus, there's always Mars. It could go for some pretty serious global warming right about now.
If the world leaders took action now to better the environment, it will have only mild (but immediate) negative economic effects. However, if we wait longer before taking action, it will be worse. As you said, poor countrys do not manage their resources at all, so when they run out, their economys will collapse. That will also cause massive problems for wealthy countrys, because they would not be able to trade goods. Therefore, their economy will suffer immensly as well.

You talk as if the kyoto protocol will have negetive economic effects - you are correct. But the econoomy will suffer much more when the climate is fucked up. If the climate is up shit creak, so is the environment, and therefore the economy will be fucked too. If the environment suffers, so does the economy, and if the economy suffers, we all do.

[NihilistThug]

You cannot view the environment as something there for your taking
The fuck I can't. The 'enviroment' is nothing but a collection of stuff. Either someone has transformed if with their labour (in which case it is theres) or I have transformed it with my labour (in which case it is mine) or no one has done anything with it yet and it's there for the taking.

Damn eco-terrorists.

[ocmpoma]

"The 'enviroment' is nothing but a collection of stuff. Either someone has transformed if with their labour (in which case it is theres) or I have transformed it with my labour (in which case it is mine) or no one has done anything with it yet and it's there for the taking."

So, you're saying that anything in that you haven't transformed with your labor is free for the taking, like, say, a cattleman's cows? I could grab someone's cow (which hasn't been 'transformed'), take it home and grill it up, no problem? What about food grown organically, without pesticides or irrigation? What about the water in my local resorvoir? What about General Sherman? What about you? Have you been 'transformed by someone's labor'? Does that mean you belong to them? Or, if you haven't, does that mean I can chop your ear off, thus transforming you through my labor, and that you then belong to me?

[Moral Savant]

I care for the environment enough to dedicate my life's work towards it. Environmental toxicology and bioremediation are the focus of the graduate work I will be doing. In fact, I have found that I like the environment more than I like the people inhabiting it. I can't help but post this transcribed quote from George Carlin because nobody has said it as well as he:
There is nothing wrong with the planet... nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine, the people are f*#*$d. Difference....Difference the planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great! Its been here for four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here what 100 thousand maybe 200 thousand, and we have only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we are a threat that somehow we are going to put into jeopardy this beautiful little blue green ball thats just a floatin around the Sun? The planet has been throuh a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through: earth quakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages and we think some plastic bags... and aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere..... WE ARE!!!, we're going away, pack your s*$t folks, we're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace either... thank God for that, maybe a little styrofoam, maybe... little styrofoam. Planet'll be here, we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuissance. You want to know how the planets doing, ask those people of Pompei who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, How the planets doin. Want to know how the planets doing, ask those people from Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week? Or how about those people in Kilawehi Hawaii who built their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long long long time after we're gone and will heal itself, it will clense itself because thats what it does. Its a self correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if its true that plastic is not degradable, the plaenet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm "The Earth Plus Plastic". The Earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic come out of the Earth. The Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place, it wanted plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it, needed us. Could be our answer to the age old philisophical question "Why Are We Here?"... PLASTIC!! A*#^*$e. So the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now and I think thats really started already, don't you? I mean to be fair the planet probably sees us a mild threat, something to be dealt with, and I'm sure the planet will defend itself. In the manner of a large organism like a beehive or an ant colony can muster a defense, I'm sure the planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet trying to defend against this pesky troublesome species, lets see, what what, ooh Viruses. Viruses might be good, they seem vulnerable to viruses, and uh viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps this virus could be one that first compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immuno deficiency virus making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction. Well thats a poetic note. And its a start, and I can dream cant't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order, call it what you want. Know what I call it?, The Big Electron. The Big Electron... Woa Woa Woa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward. it doesn't judge at all, it just is, and so are we for a little while.

[Moral Savant]

The 'enviroment' has no value except as a resource. Get rid of the State and its meddling and all problems resolve either into private property rights (water/air pollution, 'overfishing' etc) or simply decline into aesthetic disagreement in which case I think you and your 'intrinsic values' can go to Hell. Mans survival is based on beating nature, which is perpetually trying to murder him, into some controlled and orderly shape. And unless the monkeys who believe in the magic of gods and politics get us killed beforehand, I'm sure some c36 nano-tube computers will be laughing hysterically at our incompetence and fear about the 'enviroment' as they live off of nuclear fire and keep animals only as a source of amusement - if at all.
This is the attitude that is both pointless and futile. We aren't at war with nature, moreso we are at the table in ongoing negotiations and her patience is wearing thin at our empty promises. Enough said.

[Moral Savant]

I agree that taking care of the environment is a necessary long term goal, but should not be placed ahead of good economic practices. In many cases, they are one and the same.
I disagree. To support my point, read Jeffrey St. Clair's "Been Brown So Long Looked Like Green To Me: The Politics of Nature". Too many times business has shat on the environment solely to make a buck for the shareholders.

Recycling is a perfect example. Many people think they are saving the environment when they recycle their beer cans, and while this is true to an extent, the economic reality is that energy is expensive and extracting aluminum from raw materials takes a lot more energy than just melting old cans. It's briliant propaganda on the part of aluminum companies to get people to recycle, as they save production costs and increase their own profit by making other people provide their resources.

The Kyoto Accord, on the other hand represents a major failure of technology and polotics. While many environmentalists attack the US for refusing to sign it, the economic pressure it would cause can only hurt everyone. Reducing emissions by such a small amount would be incredibly expensive right now and while it would be a great way for the government to spend money from the view of Keynesian macroeconomics (more money to engineers :) and eventually the rest of the population as well as a great investment), what we really need right now is worldwide economic pressure to make much more drastic steps. I believe that the recent surge in oil prices (remember when gas was just $1? I pay almost 3) could be the start of a process of nature simply taking its course. It may be incredibly naive, but the economy behaves just like any ecosystem, and has a tendency to hover right around its long term carrying capacity. The United States and most other developed countries show that this is happening. While world populations and environmental attrocities continue to grow, most of both are occuring in underdeveloped, undereducated countries. US forrests have been stable for over a century; we know that it makes economic sense not to destroy all of our valuable resources but instead to plant a new tree for every one we cut down. Many African and South American countries don't have the ability or understanding to prevent their forrests and other resources from being permanently wiped out.

I'm not saying that everything is peachy; we need to do a lot of work on creating renewable resources. Whether that's by developing solar or wind technologies or by switching to nuclear fission or potentially fusion with a fuel standard switch to hydrogen or ethanol remains to be seen, but it won't happen until the economic conditions are right and we shouldn't push it.

Plus, there's always Mars. It could go for some pretty serious global warming right about now.
The true enemy to the environment and the same reason why you claim things are pretty peach on the homefront here in the states is because international companies put plants and factories in locations where we (as Americans) don't see them. These factories are terrible for the environment and the air/water quality for the native populations. The true disaster is that the pr department for these companies spin the facts so they look like saviors of the underprovided because they can give them a job. Hmmmm, give me a job and kill/shorten the life of half the native population, let me think about that one. Enough said.

[Philboid Studge]

Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say hard cheese!

[Moral Savant]

If the world leaders took action now to better the environment, it will have only mild (but immediate) negative economic effects. However, if we wait longer before taking action, it will be worse. As you said, poor countrys do not manage their resources at all, so when they run out, their economys will collapse. That will also cause massive problems for wealthy countrys, because they would not be able to trade goods. Therefore, their economy will suffer immensly as well.

You talk as if the kyoto protocol will have negetive economic effects - you are correct. But the econoomy will suffer much more when the climate is fucked up. If the climate is up shit creak, so is the environment, and therefore the economy will be fucked too. If the environment suffers, so does the economy, and if the economy suffers, we all do.
The absolute truth of the matter is simple. There are currently 7 billion people on the planet. That makes around 4 billion too many for us to live peacefully with nature. Man has more than proven that our animalistic drive is equal to all other species on the planet in that we exponentially grow beyond the means for our environment to provide for us. The trick is that we received a "hall pass" to go play for a few more centuries since we could cultivate food (the number one limiter of populations). Our pass is about to expire and we need a solution. The answer is simple for me to express, but hard for most to swallow. The fear and anxiety they have stems from the false "we are special and deserve to be treated accordingly" argument. All we need to do is force sterilize nearly all babies born for the next 4 decades (in a format that is completely random). Just as it took us a few hundred years to grow our population to this level it should take a reasonable amount of time to undoe this. Lastly, this method involves no genocide as the other alternatives would include. Enough said.

[Moral Savant]

You cannot view the environment as something there for your taking
The fuck I can't. The 'enviroment' is nothing but a collection of stuff. Either someone has transformed if with their labour (in which case it is theres) or I have transformed it with my labour (in which case it is mine) or no one has done anything with it yet and it's there for the taking.

Damn eco-terrorists.
You did not create the raw materials, so they are not yours to have ownership over. It really pisses me off when economy gets involved with water rights and leasing millions of gallons of a water source to another.
Damn Ecotards!!! Enough said.

[Moral Savant]

Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say hard cheese!

Who was this directed at?

[Philboid Studge]

Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say hard cheese!

Who was this directed at?
NihilistThug. ("Mans survival is based on beating nature, which is perpetually trying to murder him ...")

Everything I need to know I learned from The Simpsons.

[Amazonis]

If the world leaders took action now to better the environment, it will have only mild (but immediate) negative economic effects. However, if we wait longer before taking action, it will be worse. As you said, poor countrys do not manage their resources at all, so when they run out, their economys will collapse. That will also cause massive problems for wealthy countrys, because they would not be able to trade goods. Therefore, their economy will suffer immensly as well.

You talk as if the kyoto protocol will have negetive economic effects - you are correct. But the econoomy will suffer much more when the climate is fucked up. If the climate is up shit creak, so is the environment, and therefore the economy will be fucked too. If the environment suffers, so does the economy, and if the economy suffers, we all do.
The absolute truth of the matter is simple. There are currently 7 billion people on the planet. That makes around 4 billion too many for us to live peacefully with nature. Man has more than proven that our animalistic drive is equal to all other species on the planet in that we exponentially grow beyond the means for our environment to provide for us. The trick is that we received a "hall pass" to go play for a few more centuries since we could cultivate food (the number one limiter of populations). Our pass is about to expire and we need a solution. The answer is simple for me to express, but hard for most to swallow. The fear and anxiety they have stems from the false "we are special and deserve to be treated accordingly" argument. All we need to do is force sterilize nearly all babies born for the next 4 decades (in a format that is completely random). Just as it took us a few hundred years to grow our population to this level it should take a reasonable amount of time to undoe this. Lastly, this method involves no genocide as the other alternatives would include. Enough said.
I do agrea that what you are saying would be the best sollution. However, with the religious extremety in the world today, i can't see something like that happening. The most powefull nations have their heads so firmly stuck in the sand that something like this would be virtually impossible. Considering that it will almost difinately not happen (untill it is to late and the human race begins falling from desease), we must foccuss on other sullutions.

Abolishing debt in countrys such as Brazil, Indonesia and all other rainforest countrys would have a massive effect on the environment. Rainforest destruction may be halfed if this were to happen. I hear that Bush is considering a plan to abolish debt in countrys of starving humans, but humanitarian issues tend to overun environmental issuea in politics.

This brings me to my next point: the most important environmental threat is public opinion. The environment has not being as low on the political agenda as it is now for over 50 years, and the same can be said for public opinion, both here in Australia, and in America and bassically all first world countrys. If people don't care about the environment, they won't pressure corporations into becoming more environmentally friendly.

Sterilization is to good to be true. Also if environmental groups started lobbying for this, it may do more dammage to the environment than good - many people would see this as "evil" and therefore would think of the environment movement as their moral enemy. Unfortunately, the best cannot always be done, so we have to find ways around this.

[NihilistThug]

You did not create the raw materials, so they are not yours to have ownership over. It really pisses me off when economy gets involved with water rights and leasing millions of gallons of a water source to another.
Damn Ecotards!!! Enough said.
No one 'created' them, that's why they're there for the taking. They just exist, the Universe is nothing but a big resource pool to serve man's ends. It's just a bunch of fucking stuff.
Second, economy has practically nothing to do with water rights SINCE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS OWNERSHIP TO THE WATER. THATS WHY ITS ALL POLLUTED, E-TARDS. Liberty's the answer, what's the question?

[Little Earth Stamper]

.... SINCE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS OWNERSHIP TO THE WATER. THATS WHY ITS ALL POLLUTED, E-TARDS.
Why, again, would companies not pollute rivers to the same extent? If I had a plant that produced a lot of mercury runoff, it might be really cheap and easy to just dump that shit right in the river. How much can a river cost, anyway? I suspect it would cost less, in some cases, then complicated mercury disposal equipment. for one thing, it requires no upkeep.

And what, my customers in other states are going to boycott me because I'm polluting some river somewhere they probably won't ever go? Not bloody likely.

[NihilistThug]

Because Aquifina will sue their ass off. Water is a saleable product, idjit.

[ocmpoma]

How can Aquafina sue them when Aquafina didn't create the water, and therefore doesn't own it? How can Aquafina sue them when there are no government, laws, or courts to sue them in?

[Tenspace]

... the Universe is nothing but a big resource pool to serve man's ends. It's just a bunch of fucking stuff.
Geez, you sound like a fundamentalist. :)

[Amazonis]

... the Universe is nothing but a big resource pool to serve man's ends. It's just a bunch of fucking stuff.
Geez, you sound like a fundamentalist. :)
:lol::lol::lol:

[Viole]

Aquafina is bottling the water, see. So they do own it. However, I doubt they'd complain; a polluted river makes a little extra effort to clean the water(do you think they'd need to? I'm not sure) but it creates millions of extra customers, who can no longer rely on well water.

[Rhinoqulous]

Hey Amazonis, thought you might enjoy this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_fe_st/flower_activists;_ylt=AuH6i4mJZCCmpb7AWr36GJHtiBIF ;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl). It's about how some activists might have stalled a housing development by planting endangered flowers at the site. This is a genius, non-violent means to stop environmental destruction, if it’s true. :D

Rhinoq

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Hey Amazonis, thought you might enjoy this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_fe_st/flower_activists;_ylt=AuH6i4mJZCCmpb7AWr36GJHtiBIF ;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl). It's about how some activists might have stalled a housing development by planting endangered flowers at the site. This is a genius, non-violent means to stop environmental destruction, if it’s true. :D

Rhinoq
I think it'd be hilarious if the endangered flowers turned out to be poisonous to the local fauna. :lol:

[Another brick in the wall]

It's interference with commerce if you ask me. Everyone has to live somewhere. I would be ecstatic if people decided to use less and be more environmentally conscious, but I put a high value on liberty. These eco-terrorists are pretty much a nuisance.

[Philboid Studge]

I would be ecstatic if people decided to use less and be more environmentally conscious, but I put a high value on liberty.
Wouldn't 'using less' interfere with commerce?

I know we've been through this before, but still. I think you need to find out whether you're willing to examine very complicated issues and make trade-offs: a measure of liberty might be lost, but at least the water will be drinkable. Or, you could base your world-view on 'absolutes' and have no reason to ponder complexities at all.

[Amazonis]

Hey Amazonis, thought you might enjoy this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_fe_st/flower_activists;_ylt=AuH6i4mJZCCmpb7AWr36GJHtiBIF ;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl). It's about how some activists might have stalled a housing development by planting endangered flowers at the site. This is a genius, non-violent means to stop environmental destruction, if it’s true. :D

Rhinoq
Thats pretty amusing. But i wonder if the damage caused by the transplantation of these plants caused more harm that good.............