A Brief Explanation of Why You Should Hate Environmentalists
I’m sure you’ve seen these noble campaigners, ever-so-diligent and selfless in their campaign to save the earth from human destruction.
Indeed, that’s what these poor deluded people claim; they say humans are “destroying” the planet. But why does no one question this – what does this really mean? What is “destroying the planet”? Is there such thing? It seems to me to be the same as saying certain things which are man-made are “unnatural”, which is clearly false – we come from nature, just as everything we have interacted with. Something “unnatural” is the same as something “supernatural” per definition, and no one is claiming genetically modified foods are supernatural.
In the same way, we are not destroying the planet: there is no objective measure of destruction; there is only our perception of it. The planet doesn’t care if we destroy it. Why not? The planet has no bias. The planet has no perception of beauty or the destruction of it. It does not share our desire for beauty. “Protecting the earth” is not at all protecting the earth – it is merely protecting our own selfish interests in the earth, cleverly cloaked under the guise of altruism.
Environmentalists are egotists and liars for trying to trick us into thinking they actually care about anything else than themselves. Do not believe their lies.
I couldn’t agree more with you.
U lie
Furthermore, the planet has been through much worse than anything we’ve ever done. At one point it was covered in lava and had only microbacterial life on it.
In addendum, who are we to judge what must be saved? What is the goal of protecting the planet? There is none. The planet is an ever-changing thing, always in constant process of spawning new life-forms and eradicating old ones.
The planet at its current point cannot be saved because it is always changing. The idea of protecting the planet is foolish and naive at best, and narcissistic and derived from self-interest at worst.
USA is using too much oil, USA makes war in middle east… thats why i have to pay 1,40€ per liter (about 5,30€/7,40€ per gallon) and what have americans to pay? a third of it…and funny thing is, in 50 years, we will have no oil, or it will be friggin expensive, for europe…not for americans… USA has to start saving fuel, not the rest of the world…
my two cents
i’m not sure if i’m getting you… don’t these people seek to ‘protect the planet’ to save those living in it? including you?
the planet indeed is an ever changing thing, but we cannot deny that we have synthesized and produced material that speeds up the destruction of the things we live on.
we are from the “natural”. but we have been equipped with the intelligence that allowed us to create things that aren’t exactly in sync with nature. and the excessive and inappropriate use of these is what is campaigned against. everything is supposed to be used and reused in nature. yes even the lava, yes even the microbacterial life.
but these alien materials are going nowhere.
and, isn’t speaking ill of self interest being naive as well? who doesn’t have it? i mean why wouldn’t humans want to protect themselves and their lives?
or are you trying to speak from the perspective of an omniscient 3rd party who doesn’t care whether he lives or not?
i’m not an environmentalist, and i have heard of justifiable arguments against them. i understand the seeming mislead that the term “protecting the planet” seems to give us. but this problem against the act of doing so i could not seem to grasp… enlighten me will you?
Aha – so the planet is only us? only those who are living in it?
you prove euphorix’s point: you as an “environmentalist” are working out of a self-righteous reason: Not to save Planet Terra, but to save yourself! SILLY
yes you have been enlightened
marsheemarsh –
You are asking me, so what if environmentalists don’t care about the planet? What’s so bad about saving humans?
Well, first of all, in asking thus, you have accepted my argument as true: for you ask me about the consequences of the conclusion, thus assuming the conclusion to be true. But regardless, to answer your question: what’s so bad about saving mankind? The answer is nothing really; plenty of people think we should protect the human species. Personally, I hold some unconventional views on mankind, but they are not anything I wish to delve into. If environmentalists want to save humans, fine. If they go around saying they’re saving the planet, I have a problem. And that’s where this article comes in.
euphorix – there, alright, point taken. thanks. =)
(that other comment was for King. )
haha. i am not inviting hostility alright? i’m seeking to understand why you see it as such. so scrap the name calling because its not making you right.
let’s say, we speak from euphorix’s point of view that there is no such thing as “saving the planet” because the planet indeed has no bias. that point is taken, so crucify them for that. what environmentalists are campaigning, is that we should diminish the excessive use of those harmful materials. so YOU wouldn’t die from a flash flood. so YOU wouldn’t die from a landslide. so YOU wouldn’t die from heat when there no longer are trees to supply the cool air. (well unless you’re a cockroach who would survive no matter what, which i highly doubt)
so what’s wrong with that?
Of course, no hostility at all. It’s fun to have opposition with an open-mind for once.
All you have done here though, is repeat your question, which is: what’s so bad about protecting people?
Once again, I say: nothing. If they want to go through all this claiming that they are protecting people, then I’m okay with it. What I object to is when they claim they are protecting the planet, which I have dealt with in this article.
I liked this one many good points as; in why must everyone complain all the time no matter what happens some group of people is not going to be happy with it. Learn to not care what everyone else thinks. Good Job man
for one, a cockroach would not a survive a nuclear holocaust or complete annihilation of earth, contrary to conventional wisdom.
for another, i giggle at the “name calling” and that it invited me not to read your post beyond that line of invalidity
So from what i gather, you see everyone as the guilty party. There in lies the problem if everyone is to blame why such people who think they are the only ones who can so called : “Save the planet.” They should see them self’s as part of the problem really. I see the need they have to be different and stand out, thus making them feel they have helped humanity in some way. Life is relatively short speaking on what the planet has been through, it will recover its not the first time something like this has happened. I say get over it.
Are you with me or against me? Your reply is vague, I can not tell.
Furthermore, nice spelling, pal.
Firefox spell check add on :D I’m with you that the whole idea of there being a group of people is completely repulsive to think of and those who are naive enough to believe in it should have never been born.
you are great
““Protecting the earth” is not at all protecting the earth – it is merely protecting our own selfish interests in the earth, cleverly cloaked under the guise of altruism.”
Simply genius, keep up the good work Euphorix.
I do believe that most Environmentalists justify their position by saying that the Earth, if not cared for properly, will not be able to support human life
Thus, destroying the earth is quantified by the type and amount of life it is able to support and how long it is able to maintain that support
Sorry for the very late response….
My main problem with your argument is the word “thus” in the second paragraph. There is no correlation between the fact that the earth deteriorates, and that its value is calculated by support of life.
If you are trying to argue that environmentalists aren’t so bad because they’re protecting the human species, see my response to marsheemarsh.
God damn hippies!