Seems to me a lot of environmental involve a lot of poor people dying ie wind power so expensive they can't afford to eat, and switching to other more expensive energy sources.
What is the point of saving the planet of you aer killing al the poor people?
Surely the people lives are more important than saving the seaside holiday homes of the middle classes?
Save The Planet Kill The Poorest?
Started By
esbo
, Sep 29 2012 02:20 PM
1 reply to this topic
#2
Guest_MacPhee_*
Guest_MacPhee_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:30 PM
Seems to me a lot of environmental involve a lot of poor people dying ie wind power so expensive they can't afford to eat, and switching to other more expensive energy sources.
What is the point of saving the planet of you aer killing al the poor people?
Surely the people lives are more important than saving the seaside holiday homes of the middle classes?
You're right that people are more important. People, and human minds, are the most precious thing in the Universe.
This fact is ignored by the environmentalists. They gibber about "saving the planet". That strikes at the heart of human progress. If taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean giving up science, technology, towns, cities, civilisation, even farming. We'd just go back into the trees. Hunt animals and forage for fruit. Let our minds go deliciously blank.
But that isn't what scientific humans will do. We will use our brains to build spaceships. Then blast-off! And sail forth to seek and find. In a quest to discover what the Universe is about.
Aren't "Science" and "Environmentalism" opposites?
It might seem so. Because Scientists like fresh new fruit. Whereas Environmentalists prefer the fruit canned, so it's preserved, and unchanging.
