How politically active are you?

[wildernesse]

Also, I would like to point out that most bears who are aggressive towards humans have been conditioned to see humans as a food source. It's important to NEVER feed a bear or leave food where a bear can get into it. A food source includes garbage, bird seed, pet food, etc. Bears that become habituated to humans are often destroyed--even before they attack anyone--because they have become a nuisance and are more likely to attack a human because they associate them with food. link about bears

Why should you care about bears in the first place? Well, first of all, they are part of God's creation and should be treated with respect. Secondly, they're pretty awesome animals and I think that humanity would lose a great deal if the beauty of a bear were only to be seen on film.

--tibac

 

[Kiwi]

I'm with you wildernesse. I never understand christians who say they are anti-environmental. I think they have it confused with tree hugging and praying to rocks. The point is that GOD made the earth, the trees, the animals. Now, since we love God we should look after his creation, the things he made. Having dominion over the earth does not mean destroying it for profit and so we can drive a nice car. It says in Genesis 1:29-30 that God gave man the seed bearing plants and fruit from the trees to eat and to the animals he gave every green food. So that says to me that God is also concerned about animals as well, since he gave them a specific food supply. Man was made in the image of God, God loves and cares for people and his creation, he says to "treat others as you yourself would like to be treated". Would you like to work for .28c per pair of jeans you make, so they can be sold for $75 in the West? (Guess Jeans). Would you like to be kicked out of your house so someone else can use the land for their own profit? (as happens to many indigenous groups). Come on people, lets put a little thinking into our faith and give it some practical legs.

 

[paulewog]

Ummm, if you take a look at your computer, I bet half of your computer's parts were made in China, or something like that. It's cheaper over there. You're right. 28 cents per whatever is annoying. But what am I going to do? Not buying something would probably do nothing, and if it did it'd probably just make those people making the 28 cents make NOTHING because they lost their job. (that's communism for you.... )

Do you think that humans should recycle?

Yup.

Do you think that cars should be required to be more fuel-efficient?

Required? I dunno about that. Should they be? Yes. Consumers want that too. Ever heard a thing about gas mileage? People are into that now that ags is pricier.

Do you think that researchers should pursue alternative energy sources?

Yup. Ever consider nuclear? It is MUCH MUCH cleaner than coal, it's even SAFER... if you can imagine that. But actually it's a lot safer. Those horrid accidents, like ... er ... that Russian city ... was really, really messed up. They made all kinds of errors, they ignored the warnings, they ignored the onsite technician, and were basically pretty stupid about using the whole power plant.... hehe.

Do you think that genetic modification of crops is a good idea?

Actually no, because it probably is better for you the way God made it.

Do you think that agriculturists should attempt to preserve varietals of crop plants?

Well... sure, why not? I have never heard this before, what do you mean? hehe

Do you think that we should try to understand what is depleting the ozone layer?

It goes through cycles. Just like global warming (hey, like 40 years ago it was an imminent ICE AGE....)

Alright. When people start arguing, LEAVE THE FOREST FIRE ALONE! It's nature's way of doing x y z! Meanwhile the forest is endangering many people, killing many people, etc. That's messed up. =)

Or, you can't use that water, there are endagered trout there! Find something else to put the fire out with! (happened recently, I forgot where... I think it was a river in Colorado, not sure though).

How is preserving or attempting to preserve the planet not putting humans first?

By wanting to protect the world not FOR humans, but because they were here first or something like that...

Also, I would like to point out that most bears who are aggressive towards humans have been conditioned to see humans as a food source. It's important to NEVER feed a bear or leave food where a bear can get into it. A food source includes garbage, bird seed, pet food, etc. Bears that become habituated to humans are often destroyed--even before they attack anyone--because they have become a nuisance and are more likely to attack a human because they associate them with food. link about bears

You're right. That's why they attack. Regardless, does that mean the bear is the victim and we should actualyl protect the bear? Meaning... should the hiker be prosecuted because he shot the bear in self defense? Alright, the hiker made a mistake (maybe... or maybe it was another hiker) by looking like food or giving food or whatever. And yes, this is animal rights, hehe.

Why should you care about bears in the first place? Well, first of all, they are part of God's creation and should be treated with respect.

Agreed.

Secondly, they're pretty awesome animals and I think that humanity would lose a great deal if the beauty of a bear were only to be seen on film.

Agreed.

Essentially, my stance is this. By all means, be responsible in your use of the enviroment. I'm not at all against SUV's or something like that. I saw some statistics about pollution. We put out an EXTREMELY small fraction of radiation and stuff compared to what NATURE itself puts out (to talk about nature as an entity, hehe).

However, we should never protect the enviroment at the expense of any human life. In fact, in the OT, God said if an animal killed a human, that animal was to be killed, because it (unwittingly, since animals aren't rational) killed what God created in God's own image.

I'm all for kindness to animals by the way. I hate to see them suffer. As for endangered species and such, I'm all for stopping careless hunting and things like that... in fact I'm against careless hunting. If you hunt, USE what you hunt. I'm all for alternate power sources if they can be done efficiently. Nuclear power is a very efficient, very clean, very safe way to do it, but people generally dislike that idea because of the horror stories they have heard... the media blows some things way out of proportion, hehe. [I learned about nuclear power plants in chemistry, by the way, it was pretty interesting]

And finally, about God giving plants and such to man to eat - the fall changed all that. We're not vegetarian anymore, neither are the animals. Well not ALL of us are vegetarian. Some of us can't seem to live without meat.... hehe. Others don't like meat. It varies. Animals are both ways as well.

(that'll be something.... watching a lion eating grass....)

 

[Religious Crisis]

Ummmm....................yes.

 

[paulewog]

/me thinks that was a long post too

 

[wildernesse]

Here's two more long posts!

Not buying something would probably do nothing, and if it did it' probably just make those people making the 28 cents make NOTHING because they lost their job. (that's communism for you...)

First of all, this isn't an environmental concern--it's both a human rights and labor issue. Although those do overlap with environmental issues at times.

Secondly, I'm concerned that you think that your actions have no power in the marketplace (commerically or otherwise). All of our actions have an effect--think of the idea of a butterfly flaps its wings in Germany and it rains in Belize--and we need to be aware of them. Ignorance is no excuse for irresponsibility.

Finally, workers losing their jobs when the market for their products fails is not an example of communism--it's a prime example of capitalism. Communism gives every worker a job, no matter what, and promises adequate food, health care, shelter, etc. because everything is held in common--that was the appeal of it to the masses.

Do you think that humans should recycle?

Yup.

Why? How is recycling putting humans first? (Since this is your measure of whether something is an acceptable environmental practice.)

Regarding fuel-efficient requirements:

Required? I dunno about that. Should they they be? Yes. Consumers want that too. Ever hear a thing about gas mileage? People are into that now that ags is pricier.

Why shouldn't something that is beneficial be required? And I'd like to note that it's difficult for consumers to choose a fuel-efficient SUV when there isn't one on the market. What keeps better SUV's from the market and stricter standards from passing Congress? Hate to be cynical here, but our President and Vice-President have deep roots in the oil industry.

Regarding alternative energy:

Yup. Ever consider nuclear? it is MUCH MUCh cleaner than coal, it's even SAFER...if you can imagine that. But actually it's a lot safer. Those horrid accidents, like...er...that Russian City...was really, really messed up. They made all kinds of errors, they ignored the warnings, they ignored the onsite technician, and were basically pretty stupid about using the whole power plant...hehe.

I don't consider nuclear energy an acceptable alternative energy source. What do you do with nuclear waste?

And with the potential for catastrophic accidents like at Chernobyl and (almost at) Three Mile Island, I feel that we should limit our nuclear power usage. I haven't heard of potential catastrophic accidents with coal or wood or other plants, although you are correct when you say that they are not as clean (emission and radiation wise) as nuclear plants.

Do you think that solar energy (a clean, renewable resource) is something that we should pursue? Why or why not?

--tibac

 

[wildernesse]

Regarding genetic modification of crops:

Actually, no, because it probably is better for you the way God made it.

While I'm not for genetic modification that involves splicing one organism's genes into another's, your answer brings up more things to consider. God never made "Silver Queen" corn--it's a man-made hybrid that does not exist in the wild. Actually, all of the domesticated crops that we eat have been altered by man through artificial selection--that's why we call them domesticated. People have been using the technology they had at hand to select good traits in plants and animals from time immemorial. How is using this new technology any different?

Which brings us to my next question about varietals. A single species of plants may have several or many different varieties/varietals (man-made). Think about roses--they're all roses, but you have "Abraham Lincoln" and "Peace" varieties of roses. Varieties/varietals are to plants what breeds are to animals.

The Green Revolution in the 1960's led to the development of crops that could be more intensely farmed--more resistant to pesticides, more reliant on fertilizer, "better" stocks of plants that have huge harvests. Prior to the Green Revolution, local people all over the world used local varieties of crops. As a result of the Green Revolution, strong hybrid crops were distributed world-wide (and are currently used around the world) because the great yields were supposed to free people from famines. This led to the loss of local varieties (but many more people were able to be fed consistantly).

Why should we care about local varieties? Because they contain great genetic variation. Look at your basic ear of corn--all the kernels are the same size and the same color because they contain identical genetic information. So what? Well, say a new disease pops up that decimates the corn population--all the corn will respond in the same way, it has no extra defenses (barring the few mutations that may or may not be helpful in this case) and you have a nice extinction.

Look at what you probably call "Indian corn". The kernels are different colors and different sizes because they contain different genetic information. Say that same disease pops up in a population that has varied individuals--it may kill all of the ones with a certain genotype, but it most likely will run into several who have some kind of defense against it (limited or not).

So why is it important to preserve as many varieties of plants as possible? Because without their genetic diversity, we are at the mercy of the next massive crop extinction. (Think about the American chesnut.) If a corn blight hits, we may be able to find a means to combat it through either traditional or contemporary breeding mechanisms. So this is a potential problem for the human food supply.

Regarding the ozone layer:

It goes through cycles. Just like global warming.

How do you know this? Do you have a link to a reliable source for me?

When people start arguing, LEAVE THE FOREST FIRE ALONE! It's nature's way of doing xyz!

Here's a link to a site about the role that fire plays in chapparal ecosystems. Here's a link about U.S. ecosystems that are dependent on fires.

If you build your home in the midst of a flood plain, guess who pays FEMA to relocate you and your town? Taxpayers. If you build your home in the middle of an ecosystem that uses fire as an environmental regulator, guess who pays to fight that fire? Taxpayers. If you live in a desert, and you want a lawn and a golf course, guess who pays for the water reservoirs and infrastructure? Taxpayers. Don't you think that it would save a whole lot of money if people were more environmentally aware of the risks where they choose to live?

People don't think twice about building in chapperal--although fire is an essential part of the ecology. They do if they're building and living under a volcano. Why do you expect to be able to fight Nature successfully in one place and win (chapperal) and not the other (volcano)? Seems rather silly to me.

How is preserving or attempting to preserve the planet not putting humans first?

By wanting to protect the world not FOR humans, but because they were here first or something like that...

I'm not following you here. Who is "they"?

should the hiker be prosecuted because he shot the bear in self defense?

In many parks (government owned), if you come within so many feet of wildlife, then you are bothering the wildlife and will be ticketed. It's not just for your safety, but for the animals' as well. I have no problem with prosecuting some idiot who might have played a cute trick on a bear (poked it with a stick, say), was attacked, and then killed the animal in self-defense. Real justice would have resulted in said idiot being eaten by the animal. Then I'd have to say, served you right. (That's for idiots--people just wandering around in the woods, trying their best not to look like bear chow, of course get my sympathy.)

We put out an EXTREMELY small fraction of radiation and stuff compared to what NATURE itself puts out

Yes, there is radiation produced by the natural world. I don't think that the natural world produces acid rain on its own or many man-made carcinogens or pollutants. Please cite your source that shows that Nature naturally produces more pollutants than humans contribute on their own.

-tibac

 

[paulewog]

Yikes! I may ignore a few comments for sake of length... and forego some smileys because of that silly image thing, hehe

Oh, yes, I know my actions do count... but going on strike against all, for example, Chinese made items because they use child labor is ... hm, well I'm not sure that would accomplish much, if anything.... as I said earlier

Finally, workers losing their jobs when the market for their products fails is not an example of communism--it's a prime example of capitalism. Communism gives every worker a job, no matter what, and promises adequate food, health care, shelter, etc. because everything is held in common--that was the appeal of it to the masses.

Yes, the appeal, but it seems to me that people are STARVING over in China and Russia. However, that was not my point - my point was that the government is running the businesses, thus they don't get paid much at all. If they lose their jobs because the product fails, no, that's not EXACTLY communism's fault. Although it may have been better run when the government wasn't running it. hehe.

pquote]Why? How is recycling putting humans first? (Since this is your measure of whether something is an acceptable environmental practice.)[/quote]

That's not my measure. I never said we should WASTE anything, did I? =D

Why shouldn't something that is beneficial be required?

Let's require Christiantiy then, hm? hehe.

And I'd like to note that it's difficult for consumers to choose a fuel-efficient SUV when there isn't one on the market.

I never said there shouldn't be one, however, to REQUIRE that would put some strains on the economy, to say the least... as well as cut down on a lot of things, but that's another topic for another [way too long] post. hehe

What keeps better SUV's from the market and stricter standards from passing Congress? Hate to be cynical here, but our President and Vice-President have deep roots in the oil industry.

As does everyone. But it seems to me that Toyota recently got a hybrid car out that gets really good mileage. The problem is it's EXPENSIVE.

And people aer worried about polution, so they say ELECTRIC CARS! Well... where's the electricity made?.... hehe

I don't consider nuclear energy an acceptable alternative energy source. What do you do with nuclear waste?

The waste is peanuts... nah, rather, wheat grains... compared to the waste (and pollution) of coal. The waste is extremely small, and not all of it is even nuclear. And, if they could get a nuclear FISSION one, the waste would be like ... oh, I forgot, but it was an EXTREMELY small amount of some form of hydrogen, I believe. Like one pound a year or something like that. It's very, very clean, and much safer (I think like 200 people die a year due to coal mining accidents, for example).

And with the potential for catastrophic accidents like at Chernobyl and (almost at) Three Mile Island

Chernobyl was not an accident. It was a vey controlled catastrophe. They MADE it breakdown... you should read up about it. They ignored a LOT of things, they operated it completely wrong...

As for Three Mile Island, nobody was hurt, no waste spilled, and it wasn't a catastrophe.

Do you think that solar energy (a clean, renewable resource) is something that we should pursue? Why or why not?

Yes, it's quite good. But VERY expensive, and it doesn't produce a lot compared to otherss. If the money is available (note: I am very much against the national debt getting bigger =P), I would persue that, among other things.

Because the new technology would take like a gene from this plant and stick it in this one... very unnaturally. natural hybrids are fine, I think. I mean, that's how species and cultures came about. But to do it with our technology seems to mess up some things. Like putting in a poison type thingy in order to make a certain bug not like it.

I would agere with the whole preservation thing.

I would not agree with "implanting" an immunity to whatever in the corn. When we try to mess up genes of something, I dont' think it gets any healther for anyone =P

How do you know this? Do you have a link to a reliable source for me?

Yes, if you'd like me to dig it up, I can get my last year's chemistry book...

I never mentioned volcanos. Duh, volcanos you dont' have much control over, hehe =D But a fire... probably started by a HUMAN somehow anyways .... is a bit different. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Remember in Genesis? It said, FILL the earth AND SUBDUE it. It didn't say, Inhabit the earth in some places and try to work with it. It said to subdue it. If I want to go live in a forest and a forest fire breaks out.... shouldn't I try to subdue the fire, like God said? God gave us that authority.

I don't agree with the leave-nature-alone, go-live-in-a-city idea....

Sorry. By trying to protect animals because tehy were here first (evolutionists think anyways), thus we are newcomers, so we should let them have priority... that's the mindset of some people anyways

In many parks (government owned), if you come within so many feet of wildlife, then you are bothering the wildlife and will be ticketed. It's not just for your safety, but for the animals' as well.

I agree with that... for the most part.

I have no problem with prosecuting some idiot who might have played a cute trick on a bear (poked it with a stick, say), was attacked, and then killed the animal in self-defense.

I would agree with taht too. That's not self defense anymore, he was the one attacking, you could say Although, I wouldn't prosecute for killing the ANIMAL.

Real justice would have resulted in said idiot being eaten by the animal.

Would it? God didn't think so.... He told the Israelites, if an animal kills someone, kill the animal. No if's and's or but's. I do agree it perhaps served them right... because it was their own fault and this imaginative hiker was being an idiot. Still, we seem to disagree on the death penalty, yet if a human makes such a simple mistake as poking a stick at a bear (offending nature! oh no!) we would say that it served him right to die..... hm. So, offending nature is a bigger crime then murder now?

Yes, there is radiation produced by the natural world. I don't think that the natural world produces acid rain on its own or many man-made carcinogens or pollutants. Please cite your source that shows that Nature naturally produces more pollutants than humans contribute on their own.

Last year science again =D

Eeek long posts. Bet I ahve too many smileys.

 

[Religious Crisis]

OK, I didn't read any of the last posts for one reasion, they were too long.

 

[paulewog]

I actually didnt' read her's either.... well not at first

I copied both, pasted them in the reply box, and went through the whole thing that way.

 

[IslandBreeze]

Thank you, Paulewog...I couldn't have said it better myself...


YES I care about God's great earth, but not at the expense of chaining myself to a stupid tree because someone wants to cut it down. Instead of doing that, people should be out planting trees....

Animals on the other hand, are food. I don't believe in vegetarianism, it's a very unhealthy lifestyle, and God put man in dominion over animals.

'Nuff said for now....

 

[paulewog]

Well, actually, vegetarian is I think perhaps somewhat healthy for some people. Although, usually those vegetarians still eat chicken, just in secret I guess, or something But I think almost all people sorta require meat, hehe. I sure do. I can eat a head of lettuce and have to eat again in half an hour.

/me wondesr if cammie actually read his posts?! They are so long!

 

[IslandBreeze]

Cammie read PART of paulewog's posts. If it weren't quite so late, she would have read them all.....

 

[paulewog]

(you can do the third person thing by doing this... for example, your post, without quotes, on a new line:

"/me read PART of paulewog's posts. If it weren't quite so late, she would have read them all.....")

.....

/me isn't sure if he even read his post.

 

[fieldmouse3]

I'm not terribly active in politics. I vote, but that's about it. I rarely get fired up about political issues, and there's no one political party that I align myself with. Sometimes I get ragged on for being apathetic, but I can't help that I'm just not all that gung ho about politics.

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by paulewog

people are STARVING over in China and Russia.

people are starving in the u.s. as well, paulewog, under capitalism.

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by Cammie
If a lab rat will save my life someday, then so be it.

that's selfish.

 

[paulewog]

Twofeathers - I don't think we have quite as much a starvation problem as they do. Our unemployment is what, a couple percent. And I find it hard to believe that you can be employed AND starve at the same time very easily over here, what with minimum wage and all.

I don't see how it is selfish. It is better than a human lives instead of a rat.

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by paulewog
Twofeathers - I don't think we have quite as much a starvation problem as they do. Our unemployment is what, a couple percent. And I find it hard to believe that you can be employed AND starve at the same time very easily over here, what with minimum wage and all.

there are places in the states where the unemployment rate is 65-70%, and starvation and malnurishment is a reality here. i have seen it with my own eyes.

besides, i'm not debating which countries suffer most from starvation, i'm just saying it exists under capitalistic rule, and it's existence is greater then you'd ever imagine.

I don't see how it is selfish. It is better than a human lives instead of a rat.

a rat is a life that was created by god. a life is to be respected. not one ounce of respect lies in the testing of animals to make our lives easier. and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[IslandBreeze]

If using a rat to save a life is selfish, then so be it. Animals do not have souls. Besides, in the OT, God commanded animals be used as sacrifices...IMO, it's the same thing we're doing now...we're sacrificing animals to save the lives of humans....

That said, do you take medications? Do you use shampoo/soap/toothpaste and things like that? They're all tested on animals before they are humans....

/me shakes her head in annoyance