Comments CowsEatGrass has made

I think this implies that the consumer is asking for feedlot beef.  I think the percentage of people that actually seek out meat from feedlots because it is from feedlots is very small.  Most folks just want cheap, tasty food.  They buy the stuff from feedlots because it is cheap and it is cheap because it is heavily subsidized.  I agree that consumers are to blame, but the top-down issues are equally responsible for the perils of our current food system.

Sewage sludge is prohibited for any use on Certified Organic Farms.  It is one of the basic "Nos" along with GMOs and radiation.

Livestock should be produced near crops, preferably on the same farm.  However, they should NEVER be produced in confinement ANYWHERE.

Wow, sorry, I guess.  I shouldn't have offended your obviously right position on this.

In the spirit of furthering the dialogue, I'll attempt to separate out legitimate questions from needlessly pointed commentary.

I think it is incorrect to say that most dairy farmers treat their animals poorly.  Perhaps the cows that most of the commercial conventional milk comes from are treated terribly, but that is a very different thing than accusing diary farmers as a whole.  The problem is that, in terms of numbers of farmers, many if not most do the right thing.  They have herds of less than 50 cows (many closer to 20), these cows graze on pasture, outside, during the months where that is an option, and are cared for far better than most pets (remember, these animals are their livelihood).  Huge dairies with thousands of cows are a completely different story, and while they supply the majority of the milk, they are by no means the majority of dairy farms. Period.

Just like you would not buy your produce from a grower whose practices you didn't agree with, I would propose the same approach for milk.  Just because someone out these grows their lettuce with terrible labor practices, toxic chemicals, and an eye only on the bottom line doesn't mean you choose to eat no lettuce at all, right?

You'll hear no disagreement from me that cows on farms produce much more milk than they would "naturally" (whatever that is for a dairy cow), but it is just as easy to see that as a function of their overall health and the care that is given to them as it is to see it as evil prodding with hormones and antibiotics (of course, that happens too).

I would be hard-pressed to provide the names and addresses of acquaintances in a public forum such as this and would also hesitate to send grumpy vegans out to visit them (sorry, had to do it...).  My personal experience is mostly with small-scale Amish dairy farms selling their milk to Organic Valley and producers of both goat and cow milk working to find ways to legally sell raw milk for human consumption.  There are a bunch of resources out there to find producers in your area.  Try Local Harvest or this page: http://www.realmilk.com/where.html (note that I don't necessarily endose everything on the site, despite it being a useful resource.

Since we're way off topic: I'll add that almond milk is my favorite non-dairy alternative.

My jealousy...

"As David points out it's easy to find the refutations."

Perhaps for environmental journalists and doctoral students, but not all of us can be so enrobed in the latest information.  We might choose a few more poignant/entertaining/informative sources and catch what we can from those sources.  I have always chosen to come by Grist and Gristmill when I do have a chance for those very reasons and I am now becoming leery that I'm only going to find cynicism and indignities.  I can do that on my own.

Further,

I'm sick of knocking down the same zombie falsehoods again and again. The folks advancing these claims can no longer claim to be acting in good faith, so they won't get good faith responses from me. From now on, they get what they deserve: disdain and mockery.

I am, of course, jealous of David and his cohorts whose job it is to research and write about interesting stuff all day--and I enjoy sarcasm as a favorite personal pastime--so maybe this is all just more jealousy that now he also gets to do that and get paid for it.  But, through the jealousy, I really think that the sarcasm can be sprinkled into real information.  You don't have to respond to the idiots in good faith with a dry response to provide us with real, useful information.  The only information contained in this post was Inhofe's press release.  And this post was chosen to be linked from the daily email.

Andy

"Predictive"

I also want to jump in here again and thatnk kmp for the predictive/causative distinction in the second listed point, above.

I think this is central to winning the minds of those who understand the complexity of the issue, but not the particulars.

Climate change proponents(??) still regularly conflate these and assume (for themselves) and advertise (to othes) that correlation implies causation.  That will turn off any intelligent person.  It doesn't make the problem any less real because this is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship.  It just shows the hubris in our willingness to fundamentally alter systems that we know so very little about.

Andy

An appropriate response?

Okay, so I agree that this is a horrible piece of writing in a less-than respected newspaper.  I also agree that science education is in a sad state in this country.

However, and I hesitate a bit to even ask this question, is it worth responding to him with more "pure, reptile-brain partisan warfare, an attempt to take a perceived ideological enemy down a peg?"

This is kind of fun, and it makes us feel better, but I think those are the same primary motivations of most of the "young republicans" you refer to.
I'm not trying to downplay the role of ideology, but we Greens can be pretty passionate and thus pretty fun to poke in the ribs with these kind of comments because we come back with rections like this.  (This is also why congress accomplishes so little, in my opinion.)

Are we missing a chance to discuss the real issue (perhaps science education?) with a reply like this coming from one of the best environmental publications out there?

Andy

Hitting Home...

I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment here of the unfortunate conflation of USDA Organic and local /sustainable.  This hits home for me when I tell my grandmother about what I do (study agroecology and small-scale farming) and she brags to me how I've influenced her to start buying Organic TV Dinners.

I also agree that "if we agree on standards for organics, then it's inevitable we're going to see industrialized versions of them."  I've said this for awhile--reducing any complex, holistic, systematic notion to a set of legalistic principals is the first step to destroying the original system and its intentions (noble or otherwise).  Of course, if we don't reduce these systems to "objectively verifiable" principles, the same forces that race to the bottom in the above scenario will undoubtedly cheat and push the subjective verification past its intended limits.

So I guess where I don't follow in the original post is where it is said that "That's a good thing, right? Organic foods are healthier and organic practices better for the environment."  I'll give you that USDA Organic is better for the environment than conventional practices, but it is nothing compared to the restorative power of Sir Albert Howard's organic that Tom mentioned, or the delicate and subtle practices being implemented all over the country on small farms (whether certified Organic or not).  For that matter, it's not even close to what we associate the word "organic" with (other than "carbon containing" or simply "living").
Further, and I think I've harped on this elsewhere, we're not just talking about environment when we say "sustainable."  Sustainability is by nature a comprehensive term; it includes everything that would enable a practice or entity to continue into the future indefinitely.  The major omissions here are not looking at the economic and social impacts of industrial farming, including "industrial organic."
Industrial farming funnels money out of rural areas, and out of the hands of farmers, and into exurban estates of the wealth agribusiness owners.  In fact, when you buy food wherever you live, you are almost certainly sending your money off to some far off corporation who will do what they please with it, which is very unlikely to benefit you in any significant way.  Local food systems are a certain way to re-enliven local economies (rural, urban, and otherwise) that create meaningful economic ties between people and their place.  When your money stays in your community, you reap the benefits of it over and over again.
Also, when you buy from local farmers, you create a bond with a real person working to sustain their livelihood by sustaining your life and health.  Places like farmers markets are also more than just places of commerce, they are places where communities meet and share with each other the bounty of the land that is their community in a very real sense.

If "a bias against industrialized food production itself, based on the past behavior of agribusiness or our desire to see more small farms, is counterproductive and marginalizes our arguments," then I stand marginalized.  I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm making a values-based argument here.  I think that anyone who says their goals are not based on values is either lying or has seriously lost any real sense of why they had the goal in the first place.

Thanks for the post--you point to some important issues, even if I disagree with the analysis a bit.

Andy
On Wal-mart's organic bomb posted 3 years, 6 months ago 40 Responses

Umm...

Sorry, SJR, I don't like rhythmic dancing; I guess we'll need to tweak that plan a bit.On My problem with David Kamp's NYT review of Michael Pollan's new book posted 3 years, 7 months ago 21 Responses

Local Economy

Ah yes, the promise of local economy (just because there are never enough links to Wendell around).

This is what aligns the value in the human economy (money) with value in the natural economy (fertility, diversity, etc.).

Right now, value is sucked out of rural communities in the form of fertility (in the case of argiculture) and potential energy (in the case of mining), changes form with a broker (AgBiz, Grocer, Electric Company), and is funnelled into urban and suburban areas where profiteers live.

If only the monetary value circulated around it's original source in nature, there would be a much greater incentive and far greater resources for farmers to restore, preserve, and/or build the value of the land with sustainable practices.

Small farms also mean more people producing food for themselves and others and more people in a direct relationship with the land that sustains them.On My problem with David Kamp's NYT review of Michael Pollan's new book posted 3 years, 7 months ago 21 Responses

Hey Joe...

I'm going to have to side with Tom here.

You keep saying "sustainable," but what does that mean?
To me sustainability is ecological, social, and economic all at once.

If we don't propose solutions that are economically viable, they will never leave the ground, or will simply fail.

Further, personal and social economic success are believed to lead to reduced population growth (I'm not going to back this up unless someone insists I do the footwork).

I think the point is that all of these things are hopelessly connected and to "fight for the envirionment" (whatever that means) at the expense of people's financial well being or with no respect to thier cultural heritage or social status is destined to fail for it's insufficiency to grasp the entire problem instead of only one of it's syptoms.On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

Find Local Eggs!

A couple people have commented here that they do not know how to find a farmer who treats chickens humanely.

1)Try checking out your local farmer's market.
2)Go to www.localharvest.org and use thier handy search tool to find people raising chickens and then  go and meet them (the people and the chickens).On Umbra on free-range chickens and eggs posted 3 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Re: Males Just Don't Get It

Cancer, bacteria, mosquitoes, ticks...

The absolutes just never work out.  There's always grey area...sorry, I know it's hard to deal with.On Environmental ethics II: The humanist strikes back posted 3 years, 8 months ago 37 Responses

Agricultural Imagination

Great points!  Even better, I see all of the pieces starting to weave together here.

It reminds me of an article I read about the Agricultural Imagination.  This is what comes to my mind when I try to answer your question of "Why is it so difficult to get people interested in the politics of food?"

It seems intuitive that food would be one of the easiest and most natural issues for people to be interested in--and they are...to a point.  Then things get dirty, that is, they get very complicated.

To be an "old school organic" farmer is to learn to dance with the inconsistencies and contingencies of the natural world.  Inconsistency and ambiguity are what modern technology has been most effective at eliminating--for better and for worse.

I think the people you speak of who have the discussions about biofuels and hybrids do so from the standard modern point of view; the "technological mind."  When the same problem, the end of abundant, cheap oil, is looked at with the "agricultural mind" the problem turns out to be very different.  Biofuels and hybrids look more like fixes for symptoms rather than solutions for the real problem.

Figuring out how to get at one's own agricultural imagination is difficult enough, let alone trying to access others' "In a culture where food production takes place in such abstraction."  Cutting through the food-as-sport mentality requires more than simply appealing to people's stomachs, it requires something much more like challenging the technological view of the world at it's very root.On A food-politics writer expresses angst at the obscurity of his topic posted 3 years, 8 months ago 24 Responses

The answer is not new

While I initially like the idea of simply doing away with all of the programs and letting the farmers actually do what their markets need them to do, I fear that in the recent past and current climate has created the behemoths in the business that are in a position to simply complete their take over.

Thus, I think one of the most important items is something that both Ken and Tom mention--the need for infrastructure for local processing.  I like the idea of consumers buying as many fresh, whole, farm goods as possible, but few of us can do much with, say, wheat berries.  Whether individuals or co-ops build this infrastructure matters very little to me, but local food systems are not going to work across the board without some of this infrastructure being (re)placed in rural communities.

Secondly, and more dauntingly, I think the best way to bring about (or more accurately reinvigorate) environmental conservation in farming communities is to make it worth it to the farmer to see the big picture and look at the long term.  Historically, the motivation to take care of the land was the fact that the farm would stay in the family for many generations to come--it was  your legacy that was at stake when you put plow to soil.  Now, there are so few farms that will stay in families, there is little motivation to treat it in the same way.  I'm not saying it's right, but where's the motivation to enrich the soil if tract houses are going to be built on it in 10 years?
We need to find ways to make farming a respectable and dignified profession again.  Most farmers have no control over what they buy thier inputs for and they have no control over what they sell their products for.  They are treated as expendable cogs in a machine over which they have no control and don't even necessarily want to be a part of.  What kid would decide to be used by vendors and consumers alike and then be scoffed at by urbanites who eat the food they grow for being conservative and "spoiling" the environment.

Now take that and put it in your farm bill!

Essentially, if the farming family knows that farming will support them and their kin indefinately out into the future, they will want to keep make sure that the land and business are kept in the best of shape (read: stewardship).  Respecting and taking care of farming families will in the end benefit everyone who eats, and everyone who breathes the air and drinks the water the farmers must use to create the food.On The U.S. needs a food bill more than a farm bill posted 3 years, 8 months ago 14 Responses

Sarcasm

Yeah, Tom, you're just not smart enough to know when you're being fooled.  Some day you'll learn...On New Union of Concerned Scientists report finds grass-raised beef healthier posted 3 years, 8 months ago 11 Responses

Thanks for this!

Great Post!

I just wanted to add that even some large portion of those cattle who start their life in the pasture end up at a feedlot for "finishing."

While to some this may be slight more karmically appealing, this doesn't change the fact that it's inhumane, ecologically destructive, and economically degrading (for rural communities of course, not the owners).

One hurdle to overcome here is that the average palate is accustomed to corn-fed beef.  Grass fed and finished beef just tastes different.  The growing popularity and refinement of grazing techniques has done away with the consistency problems (in a marketing sense) that grass fed beef had no so long ago, but it just tastes different, I think better, but different nonetheless.  On-farm grain finishing by local producers may still be a viable and sane option, and cows can remain healthy while eating some(!) grain.

To follow up on the other posts, the other (possibly larger) hurdle to overcome is the fact that per capita beef consumption will need to drop pretty dramatically for feedlots to disappear.

Anyway, thanks for the post.
Go meet a farmer and shake her/his hand, then put some money directly in it!  Thank your farmer and respect your dinner.On New Union of Concerned Scientists report finds grass-raised beef healthier posted 3 years, 8 months ago 11 Responses

Durable?

What about durability?

That should factor into the sustainability discussion around building products as well.On Umbra on bamboo flooring posted 3 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses

Hypocrisy

Damn Africans trying to do what we do.  Where do they get off?

Amazing statistic though...On Africa goes cellular posted 4 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Or have cowseatgrass!

Yes, not eating beef is certainly an option--and the one I lean toward.

However, most scientists think that the only way for the disease to be transmitted (and thus continue to be a problem) is by feed contaminated with BSE (mad cow disease).

Ground up cow parts in cow feed is likley causing the whole damn thing.

Cows F$%@#ng eat grass--not corn, slaughter house remnants, soybean stubble, silage, peanut hulls, or antibiotics.On Reason number 5,233,294,049 ... posted 4 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

Hold Your (work)Horses

A few things...

It seems that these posts largely (if not intentionally) ignore two of the three pillars of sustainability -- economic and social concerns.  Furthermore, I think the energy arguement ends up wrong because it's incomplete (as energy analyses inevitably are).  And I don't agree that the energy makes the "biggest difference."  I also can't make the numbers any less squishy--there's too many factors to make hard and fast statements about agriculture (all the more reason agriculture can't be run only as a business, it's a lifestyle).

Anyway, the statement that there's probably a huge range of on-farm energy costs across the distance grade is correct.  However, it is only with the local that it is so easy to actually find out how much energy is expended on the farm in the production of each commodity (in soft terms, of course).  You can ask the farmer, even go to the farm!  Further, you can find out what pesticides and fertilizers are used (pollution of air, water, and soil and fossil fuel implications).  Smaller farms can easily use less energy than large farms who are bound to huge diesel rigs by using a combination of manual labor, small tractors (possibly using renewables???), and maybe even traction animals (gasp!).

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't add up to me:

So by this reckoning, growing all of your food in your own backyard isn't as important as improving your car's gas mileage by a mere 3 percent. Or, put differently, all else being equal, it may be wiser to choose a home within walking distance of a grocery store than one that's adjacent to the fields where your food is grown.

This one also doesn't cut it:

We lower the environmental costs of food production by growing each kind of foodstuff where it is more efficient (on average) to do so. For example, we tend to match plant varieties to climates and soils. If we grew everything everywhere, so that everybody could always buy local, we would need more pesticides, fertilizer, water, energy and land to produce the same amount of food.

Now back to what you're missing-
The social issues cannot be overlooked.  Rural communities turning into slums and ghost towns.  Not to mention children not knowing what a potato plant looks like (do you?).  Then there's the plight of farmworkers on massive farms.  Add in the health, taste, and security concerns with this and it begins to look quite remarkable.

Then there's the economic side.  Money circulating in a local economy is good for consumers and producers (a.k.a Citizens).  Most food dollars funnel into the vertically integrated corporate hands; they supply the seed, fertilizer, pesticide, and machinery, and then by the commodities and process, store, ship, distribute, and sell the "value added products" back to the farmers who feed their families with food they bought at Wal-Mart because they can't afford to shop elsewhere on the margin.

Finally, the references to "back-to-the-land" put a spin of quaintness to the idea of meaningful local economies that is undeserved.  It's pretty obvious that every system we have ever had (or tried to have) has failed when held to the standard of "sustainable."  I think something much more complex needs to develop from astute imagination if food, economics, and energy are to come into some sort of sane relationship.
Your comments about the inefficiencies of a diffuse population are correct when looking backwards, but not necessarily true when looking forwards.  They also fail to recognize the social and environmental costs of concentrated populations who are touted as more efficient.

True local economies will not just be based on food--diffuse populations now rely on centralized supplies of energy, goods, and services.  It is when the sources become as diffuse as the sinks that we can mark one in our column in the struggle against entropy.

So it's not just about buying those grains and veggies (and maybe a little meat) locally--it's got to be about locally producing and buying that fridge and stove you mention, too.On The question of whether to buy locally grown food is not as clear as it might appear. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Huh?

I can agree that the far right sometimes goes further right to shift the center and do some more name calling -- "dern liberals."  But you fail to self relfect.  The left does the smae thing to shift the center.  That's how we've ended up with the chasm that most of the country resides in.

The second problem is that you assume that when the center is shifted, self-proclaimed centrists shift with it.  Why?  My opinions don't change as the climate changes.  I don't cling to the center like an ideologue clings to the right or the left.  That's the whole force behind my position--clinging to an ideology because you can then hide behind a label is ridicuolous.  Standing up for what you believe regardless of where it falls on the spectrum or how it is spun is the basis of citizenship.On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

Vegetarianism...

This may not be the place for it, but here goes...

I personally, been nearly vegetarian for the last 5 years.  By nearly, I mean I have eaten meat between 5 and 10 times over that period.

I do not question the arguments against the uniquely American diet based primarily on animal-derived products.  Nor do I question the arguments against raising animals on feedlots, with grain--for both ethical and environmental reasons.  The planet and the human psyche will continue to suffer under the current methods of meat production and will multiply if, in fact, westernization of diets continues.  Mr. Harrison, whom you quote, notes the difficulty we face in overcoming the status-quo.

HOWEVER, the statement that killing animals is unethical in an absolute sense is unfounded.  (Universalist, absolutist statements drive me crazy in general -- see my last post on nearly the same subject)  We cannot live without making a profound difference.  We cannot live without killing things.  I challenge anyone to draw a line on which we can clearly kill things on one side and not things on the other; it just won't work.

I do agree with Tolstoy that "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food" -- but the rest simply does not follow.  First of all--he simply goes straight to the normative from the substantive.  Secondly, he fails to consider our enjoyment as worthwhile.

So what do I think we should do?  Eat very little meat.  Raise all of our meat on the foods they have evolved to eat (usually grass).  And treat them well dammit; we are taking their lives to sustain our own--they deserve the utmost respect.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that animal husbandry CAN be done right, but is rarely done so.  Unfortunately, too many people have never been on a farm, patted a grazing pig, or chased down a calf who jumped the fence.

I advise anyone who is concerned about environmental issues to pay attention to where their meat comes from.  Find a farmer, shake his or her hand and ask them how they raise their livestock.  If you like what you hear, buy something from them.On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

Try these too

I'm in the process of looking for employment as well.  Here are a few links I've compiled over the last few weeks.  Good luck.

http://www.ecojobs.com/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/jobs/index.cfm

http://www.environmentalcareer.info/index.asp

http://www.envirolink.org/categories.html?catid=9

http://www.ecoemploy.com/

http://www.envirocitizen.org/enet/jobs/index.asp

http://www.devnetjobs.org/

http://www.environmental-expert.com/jobs.asp

http://www.coolworks.com/

http://www.environmental-expert.com/jobs.asp

http://www.earthworks-jobs.com/

http://philanthropy.com/jobs/

http://www.aee2.org/customer/post/search.php

http://www.acre-resources.co.uk/jobsmain.php

http://www.environetwork.com/

http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/a9fws.asp

http://www.interpnet.com/interpnet/jobs.htm

http://www.eelink.net/jobsearch-multisitesearch.html

http://www.eelink.net/eejobsdatabase.html

http://www.aeoe.org/jobs/#find_a_job

http://www.backdoorjobs.com/

http://www.alhfam.org/alhfam.jobs.html

http://www.greenbiz.com/jobs/viewjobs.cfm?CFID=2753934&CFTOKEN=92053250On Umbra on finding the right green job posted 4 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Thanks Grist...

Just wanted to show some appreciation for stirring it up.

I know Jeremy's comments have aroused the usual suspects, but I suppose you'll have that.

Informed, diverse discussion with a broad base of inputs and constuients is what we need more of.  Many don't want to hear that the "environmental movement" is elitist and exclusionary--but it seems to bother those most who perpetuuate those facets and who fear change as their positions might make less sense than they once thought.  Oh, and then there's some off-the-wall ideas about hunting and gathering (acorn, anyone?), GMO's, and nuclear power seemingly to derail things further.

What happened to the middle path?
I have heard a few moderate voices here, but generally it's just bickering from one side to the other.  Sounds like the impassioned minorities on both sides shutting out a reasonable, yet complacent, majority--we might as well have an election here.

While I disagree with Jeremy's examples and some of his stances, I think I agree with the overall, original point of this post.  Why should environmentalism be married to any other ideology?  When will it take on a life of its own and start making the categories instead of being shaped by the old tired categories we inherited?

I've crossed swords before with the above mentioned instigators before in the religion discussion.  The hubris and hypocrisy in the trying to force others out who want to work toward the same goal is all but unbelievable to me.  Beyond that, it's what's wrong with environmentalism in the United States today.  Petty turf wars.

I don't write this to point the finger at either side, or direct it away from myself; I think the discussion that has evolved here is a perfect example of why Grist has (and should have) endorsed Jeremy to post.  With no discussion between environmentalists with different core values, the shared goal dissolves into a penis flailing contest rather than an informed discussion about real issues.

Let's talk about how to get something done rather than fighting about the second-order intellectual crap.
On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

For further reading:

Hey

I've just been sitting back for awhile taking this all in and I thought I'd chime in with interesting reading material that speaks directly to the subject at hand.

First, we've got the classic crtique of Chirstianity's environmental views By Mr. Lynn White, Jr.

And then we've got a response by Mr. Wendell Berry.

Both are convincing, yet I can't completely agree with either.  Of course, I think Wendell's is written better...

I still think pluralism is the way the environmental movement is going to need to shift to become more effective at changing the root metaphors the general public operates on.

The atheist/scientist worldview that has been a main source of derivation for the current paradigm of environmentalism has been woefully inadequate at speaking to those with a more spiritual view of the world. This is not to mention the outright prejudice those who are religious and environmentally minded can experience (see posts near the top of this discussion).

Fatih-based environmental groups have also tended to "miss the boat" on some issues because of their unwillingness/inability to work with more mainstream groups on ethical grounds.

We need to foster and hold respect between groups with different core values and promote collective action along with the ability to openly criticize and openly accept  reasonable criticism from other groups.

When "the environmental movement" becomes a pluralistic movement, it will be unstoppable (or alternatively it will become unstoppable through necessity and thus will be necessarily pluralistic, but you know.)On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 41 Responses

Okay...

So I, no computer whiz...
Here's the link I intended to include
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/5/17/84721/9597On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

Rebuttal and Redirection

1.  I do not want to argue--just to have my poition heard and not trampled on by those who disagree.

2.  I don't belive I called anyone a name or intentionally tried to deceive anyone.  I gave an honest opinion on a topic, and on a comment about that topic.

3.  Nobody makes the decision who is and is not an environmentalist.

4.  If only "natural beings" are allowed in the "wilderness" -- I suggest you go hiking naked with no gear, or does that "industrial" stuff not count?

5.  Why should the line be drawn at "machines" versus "natural beings" (by the way, good luck conclusively differentiating the two)?  Aren't we concerned with the result here?

And to return to the original topic at hand...I don't think Mr. Bush probably recognizes the disconnect between his politics and personal life--it's quite baffling.  There's probably a real conservative (in the traditional sense--i.e. conserving energy and land) guy somewhere under the public picture that is painted for and by our president.  He just does't see how his job should have anything to do with that--he's a true businessman.  Frighteneing.
On Bush wants to ride his bicycle bicycle bicycle posted 4 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

OK, now you've gone and made me create an account

I think those posting here should be careful.  Not for the sake of political correctness, but maybe for the sake of avoiding outright hypocrisy.

Tauting science as the answer as opposed to religion is nothing more than a ultimately unsubstantiated belief that the way humans "figure things out" is "correct" in some meaningful way.  Sounds like a leap of faith to me.  We're probably not as smart as we'd like to think.  We'll never "know" anything more than what our senses and faculties tell us--the tricky bastards.

Or worse, make a plea to rationality--spout your beliefs about the way others should think and then tell everyone you don't want to hear what they believe.

I'm not a particularly religious guy--somewhere between agnostic and pagan.  What I do believe is that people are searching for answers and it's most likely that no one has it exactly right--and quite frankly we're screwed if any religion or science does.

Religiousity certainly has a place in environmentalism.  We're all fighting for (or at least hoping for) things we can't really explain when it comes down to it.  Although any given worldview, on any given day, might be dangerous to people, plants, animals or the whole darn ball of existence, I'm not so sure anyone should be doubting the concept of religion wholesale.  It's that kind of blind confidence that I think we're trying to avoid, not just certain kinds of blind confidence.

This certainly doesn't make anything easy, but simplistic notions cannot compete with the utter complexity of the problems and joys we face together.On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses