Leprof’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  back to edf

  Just for the record, the 'f' is back.
  Here's the story as I understand it.
  EDF had decided to drop the F because they were receiving requests from external groups for funding for environmental projects.
  EDF changed its name to Environmental Defense and had the same company that came up with FedEx come up with a new symbol/brand name; they came up with 'e' the lower-case e.
  After a few years, e realized that they had far more name recognition as EDF and switched back.On On Charlie Rose, EDF leader Fred Krupp endorses domestic drilling for new oil posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  and so...

  What are the flaws in the project, what are the problems that are stalling it, and how do we move forward?On Why the Everglades is burning, and how we sucked it dry posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  a life vs. an ecosystem

  What comparison can be drawn between the value of a single life and the value of a healthy ecosystem?  I don't get why so many people object to this stuff.

  Even if we frame the arguments purely in terms of utility or value to the kangaroos (i.e. a completely kangaroo-centric argument) it is not tricky to argue that the quality of life gained by the entire kangaroo population is as large as the negative value for the portion of the kangaroo population that was culled out.  Likely, the kangaroos, as they exist now, are not living what might be considered a "good life" for a kangaroo.

  We can draw, for example, a parallel to the prescribed burnings of pine savannas in the American South.  I'm sure little furry things die in these burnings, but they are ESSENTIAL to the health of the ecosystem, the survival of numerous species, and, ultimately, the quality of life for future furry things.

  It is extremely well established that overpopulation by herbivores results in a loss of biodiversity, sweeping changes in vegetation, and a poor parody of what once was an amazing biological system.

  I can understand the concern that we should use other methods of population control for the 'roos, but there simply aren't always the resources to do so, without limiting other conservation projects.On Australia military will kill hundreds of kangaroos posted 1 year, 8 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  organic bananas

  health be danged,
  buy organic bananas to reduce the massive pesticide load dumped into the local environments surrounding banana farms.
  Better yet, switch to a fruit that isn't farmed in monoculture on cleared tropical rainforest land, then shipped an ungodly distance to your grocery store.

  Another note:
  Beautiful fruit is not the same as quality fruit.  As an example, juice oranges, bred for actual quality of the juice, look pretty ratty (but we never have to see them).  The nice bulging orange oranges of supermarkets have been bred for beauty as much as for fruit quality. Furthermore, much of the pesticide application on orange-growing farms is geared at getting supermarket oranges to look nice, not at actually improving the culinary or gastronomical qualities of the orange.On Umbra on organic bananas posted 1 year, 8 months ago 22 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Environment to me

  Points taken, atreyger and ivory.  I have tried here (with mixed results) to respond to both in one shot.

  There are some definitions that we environmentalists can agree on.  Neither you nor I will rally behind a cry to save a strip-mall environment that's slated to be bulldozed to create an organic co-op.
  To me, preserving the environment essentially means three things:
  1.  Maintaining species diversity
  The world is made a more colorful, interesting, sometimes sad or scary, and wonderful place for its creatures.  
  2.  Preserving wilderness
  Insert "wilderness" for "creatures above.
  3.  Preserving the sorts of open space (e.g. farms) that are used effectively by nature. These places are the union of civilization and nature.  

  With these three goals in mind, some things become apparent.  Overpopulation concerning any species is a bad thing.  Humans either have recently exceeded or are about to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth.  This carrying capacity may significantly decrease as we continue to unnecessarily degrade our resources (land, water, atmospheric).  I do not advocate mass suicide or homicide or negligence towards human rights, but I perceive it as blindingly obvious that the environmentalist's goals are well-served by regulating the human population, possibly through education or birth control distribution.

  Invasive exotics are a bad thing.  The run biodiversity out of the window.  One who would argue that wonderful exotics make the quality of life better and should be preserved may have a valid point, but I would not consider him or her to be an environmentalist, and his or her point is one with which I would vehemently disagree.  Poison ivy, incidentally, is a good thing.  Birds love its fruit, kids learn to avoid it; its itch (from which I am currently suffering) falls in with the "scary or sad" elements of the environment that make life on earth amazing.  

  I don't wish to glorify nature as a happy la la land of cute fuzzy animals.  To tell the truth, cute fuzzy animals kind of bug me.  But I am entirely committed in the belief that the natural world is so complex, fine-tuned, intricate, and perfect that it is worth trying to preserve as many pieces of it as possible.  It is the most beautiful thing in the world to me, even the ugly parts.  Well, maybe it ties with human culture as the most beautiful thing in the world.  I would not unequivocally uphold the environment at the expense of human culture, but I would absolutely use every humane means to lessen the sheer numbers of humans.  Indeed, many human cultures are facing extinction under the pressure of population.  The Sahel peoples are finding themselves desertified, India's masses have less and less space to thrive in, the old American farming ways of life are on their way out...

  I agree, atreyger, that it depends on who's writing the definition, but for my purposes, I write the definition, and my kind of environmentalist sees humans, at least in the excessive numbers and consumerist lifestyles that they have reached, as essentially detrimental.  I am not a hypocrite, because I don't advocate that any human sacrifice themselves for environmental benefit.  Still, I would have to look at such people with grim admiration, because they may be accomplishing more than I am willing to.

  As an environmentalist, I try to do less damage than most to the environment as I define it for myself.  I do not succeed in this endeavor, but I do succeed in doing less damage than most other Americans.  I hope that through activism and effort I might be able to make large enough differences in the world to erase my own contributions to environmental destruction, but I recognize that the chances may be slim.

  Let me end by making three things clear, if I haven't already.  
  

  1. In my opinion, "the good in nature" does not need to be "brought out" by humans.  It exists as something that we could not hope to better through interference (except in the cases of us already having screwed it up and trying to restore it).
     
  2. I glorify the natural world at the expense of human numbers, but not at the expense of human life.  I do not wish to reduce human numbers through malice or negligence.
     
  3. I glorify the environment for its astounding beauty and complexity in every way.  Species interactions, individual interactions, the functioning of organisms, the sheer diversity of life, make the environment worth saving.  I do not consider the natural environment to have "bad parts" like poison ivy or "ugly parts" like that could be witnessed on the Discovery Channel.  I've seen cute fuzzy things get maimed, before.  It's ugly when a car does the maiming, but beautiful when a hawk dives and catches prey.

  I hope I articulated myself well.  I hope you understand my position.  I hope you will needle me about it if I was unclear or illogical.  I hope that you are as steadfast in your position as I am in mine and that I have not changed your mind about anything.  I affirm that I understand your position and need no more explaination of it.  I recognize that our ideas have a great deal of common ground from which we can work together towards the mutual preservation of your "environment" and my "environment."

  Thank you.
  De rien.

  LeProfOn Repeat after me: Humans are part of the environment posted 3 years, 4 months ago 18 Responses