Comments JoeSchmoe has made

  • Why haven't the dems renewed the ESA?

    Now that the democrats control both houses of congress, why have they not taken any steps to renew the endangered species act?!  It is crucial that this get done before the election cycle begins and yet I have neard nothing from the democrats about making this a priority.On A teasing hint posted 2 years, 8 months ago 1 Response

  • B.S.

    For someone who posts on a website that claims to trumpet rational argumentation because the enlightenment isn't dead, you sure have a post-modern view of things. You don't want to "contradict my worldview"?  Value lines are "arbitrary"?  B.S. I say to you sir.  I'm the one taking the enlightenment view by arguing that GMO is objectively wrong, and I don't care what your worldview is, you're just plain wrong.  I'm sure that slave owners thought abolition would "invalidate many things that we take for granted (and like) about the modern world."  But they were morally wrong and so are you.On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

  • Fantasy

    "the notion that there is somehow some pure anadultered world out there that it is "sinful" or immoral to tamper with strikes me as so much fanasty"
    It doesn't matter what strikes you as fantasy, it is your argument that matters.  You haven't provided one, or responded to the arguments of others--you've only dismissed them.  On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

  • moral claim

    "Based on what moral claim do you believe that your statement rests?"
    The moral claim I base my statement is this: things which have a good or bad independent of human desires--an inherent worth--deserve respect.  The natural world has inherent worth, therefore it deserves our respect.  Respect involves not placing your desires above that of the thing with inherent worth.  Genetic engineering disrespects the natural world in putting our perceived good above the inherent good of the natural world.  Thus, is immoral.On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

  • GMOs

    Noone has seemed to mention the moral argument against GMOs, that it is immoral to tamper with organisms in this way.  I think there is something deeply wrong with taking a gene from one species and placing it in another.  I think that living things have a sanctity that must be respected by mankind; crossing genes in the lab violates this sanctity in a way natural gene-exchange, i.e., sexual reproduction, does not.On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

  • population

    I am furious at the mainstream environmental groups for not making the US population growth an issue for obvious political reasons.  They've sold out the environment for politcal gains and will end up achieving neither environmental protection nor political power by their silence on this issue. And every day more and more sprawl eats up the countryside, aquifers deplete, fish populations decline, more species become endangered due to habitat loss, cars and electricity generation lead to global warming and the mainstream evvironmental groups remain silent about the elephant in the room:  unchecked population growth. On The population of the U.S. ... posted 3 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

  • crow

    David,
         I have to say I think you handled this poorly.  You shouldn't have had to eat any crow.  Your response should have been across the lines of "The eternally indignant right-wing nuts once again show their penchant for attacking staw-men.  I only said there should be something LIKE Nuremberg, i.e., an international tribunal investigation wrong doing.  Secondly, I never attacked global warming skeptics, I only attacked professional obfuscators and deniers.  It's time for the right-wing to pick up a copy of "Critical Thinking for Dummies" and look up attacking a straw-man.  However, this gives me an oppurtunity to flesh out my analogy and say in what ways I don't think an international investigation would be like Nuremberg..."  Just me 2 cents. On More navel-gazing! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

  • Honeymoon

    If you're going to be on a honeymoon, even though it might be tough to find a vacancy in August, I'd suggest you try Nantucket.  There are many restuarants and beaches and shops there and it's just as pretty as you can imagine.  All parts of New England have their charms (except Connecticut, can we please kick them out of New England, they're just wanna-be New Yorkers :) ) but Nantucket is what I'd call the best place for a honeymoon. On What's to do in New England? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

  • immigration

    Again, I never hear environmentalists get all worked up as to what the meaning of "local" is except for this issue.  Are you going to say that we can't think globally and act locally on pollution, deforestation, global warming, etc., because we can't come up with a satisfying definition of "local"?  Are environmental organizations going to stop working on these issues until we come up with the proper scope of locality on which we are going to be acting? Actually, I don't care what level we define as "local."  If the states want to each set a sustainable population level that would be fine with me.  But simply as a matter of law, it is the federal government that is responsible for immigration and so that is the level that seems appropriately local to me.On Immigration posted 3 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • immigration

    David,
         Could you clarify your reasons for believing this?  Surely we're in agreement that human population growth is a cause of many if not all environmental problems.  And I assume we're in agreement that all population growth in the United States is the result of immigration.  It seems to me that without immigration in the US we would have a steady population and that would stop the environmental problems associated with population growth in the US.  Of course it probably will not stop population problems in other countries, but that has never stopped envronmentalists before.  For example, we would not let a forest in the US be logged simply because the Amazon is also being logged; we try to stop the problem in the US AND in the Amazon.  If we could stop all unsustainable logging in the US that would be a major environmental victory, despite what happens in the Amazon.  Of course, we should try to stop logging in the Amazon as well.  The analogy with population growth should be clear.  Why are you willing to abandon our "think globally, act locally" principle on this issue?  How do you respond to the charge that environmentalists are hypocrites because they pick and choose the issues where they are willing to think globally and act locally?  On Immigration posted 3 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • immigration

    "Joe Schmoe, once you admit you are ready to put aside morality, as a matter of merely relative value, a device which may or may not serve us, then this little boat of ours flips over, doesn't it, and we are all tossed into the drink."
    When did I do that?  All I did was point out that it was odd that an environmental blog criticized an idea and never considered the environmental effects of the idea.  I still find it odd that on this issue some environmentalists all of a sudden become obsessed with economics and politics, and drop environmental concern entirely.  On Immigration posted 3 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • immigration

    "It's a political loser, a moral loser, an economic loser."
    Shouldn't our concern be whether it is an environmental winner?On Immigration posted 3 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

  • CowsEatGrass

    If a fishery was being overfished, Tom would have us "build communities" where we don't like to eat fish, I would mandate that the overfishing stop; if a strand of redwoods were threatened with logging, Tom would have us "build communities" where we don't need the wood, I would stop the logging; if a factory was spewing pollution across the landscape, Tom would have us "build communities" where we don't use the factory's products, I'd demand the factory stop polluting. Then we can begin to build communities where we get by without doing these things, but that should be only after we stop the harmful practice.  Which approach is more likely to immediately stop the environmental problem at hand?  The greatest successes of the environmental movement--the clear water act, the clean air act, the endangered species act--all succeed by having strict rules in place which mandate that the environmentally destructive practice end.  We should take the same approach when it comes to overpopulation--demand the the practice stop, then begin to build communities where we get by without the destructive process.  Tom would have it the other way around, an approach that I think is destined to fail.  On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

  • re:

    The next time I'm at a rally trying to stop logging, or raising money to stop a condo development, or trying to stop whaling, I'll be sure to let everyone know that we're being "vulgar environmentalists" by putting environmental protection before economic development.
    Actually, I'm not against logging if it is done in accordance to FSC standards, or fishing if it is done in accordance with MSC standards (so maybe we're not too far apart in that we both think economic activity is compatible with environmental protection).  Why is that?  Because FSC practices are sustainable, MSC practices are sustainable, organic food production is sustainable, but population growth is not.  There are no set of standards, short of colonizing other planets (but I wouldn't hold me breath on that) that can be applied to population growth that can make it sustainable in the long run.  When it comes to population, the only sustainable practice is no growth. On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

  • re:

    Tom, the next time you see someone advocate moving to organic argiculture or calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emmisions, or stopping a housing subdivision, I expect to see you accusing their plans of having "loads of practical problems" or being "endlessly expensive," or "triggering all manner of economic crisis."  The next time someone advocates not logging a forest in North America, I expect to see you pointing out that "the solution would have no net effect on" deforestation since logging continues in Indonesia.  
    I thought environmentalists were in favor of solving environmental problems, and economics came second.  Animal rights activists don't care about the economic effects of ceasing meat consumption, forest defenders don't care if some loggers must lose their jobs, fish advocates don't care about the effects on fishermem, but now all of a sudden we're concerned with "labor shortages"?  It is true that in many cases we are helping fishermen in the long run by limiting catch, or loggers by protecting forests, but we've always been willing to accept short-term hardships in favor of long term sustainability.  Limiting immigration is no different than the above cases--short term hardships must give way to long-term sustainability, and just as in the long-term we are doing everyone a favor by stopping logging or overfishing, in the long-term we are doing everyone a favor by taking a stand on overpopulation.
    In America we have a great opportunity in that all population growth is the result of immigration, if we stopped immigration, we would have steady population, and then we could truly begin to learn to live sustainably and without the insane demand for constant growth. Population growth can not continue unabated, all other environmental issues are a subset of population problems.    

    As you must have noticed, I never advocated building "a wall and a bunch of uniformed thugs with clubs and guns," and I still don't.  Nor do I advocate ending all immigration since I have said that I wished to keep population steady.  This may indeed require continuing immigration in sharp contrast to "pie-in-the-sky nativism."
     On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

  • re:

    Environmentalists are constantly being hit by criticism from right-wingers that their proposals are uneconomic, impractical, or that me simply recycling, or buying organic, or eating less meat, or driving less, won't have an effect when others continue to do so.  I am pointing out that it is shocking to see those same criticisms that the right-wing like to haul out against environmentalists, being hauled out BY environmentalists on this one issue.  Accel2, your "why bother when others will continue increse population" is the exact attitude environmentalists have been fighting against for decades when it comes to recycling, energy conservation, pollution, and a host of other environmental problems.  "Think globally, act locally" is our answer to such arguments, and I think it is horrible to see it abandoned on this issue, it makes us look like hypocrites.  I am all for women's education, birth control, economic development, etc., in all countries.  But on this issue, I'm apparently the only one thinking glabally and advocating acting locally.On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

  • re:

    "I suppose he's also prepared to see his food bill rise dramatically--and watch his property lose value when the Fed has to jack up interest rates."
    Again, it's funny that environmentalists of various stripes can advocate replacing all fossil fuels with renewable energy, replacing all commercial agriculture with organic methods, advocate everyone on Earth becomming vegan, advocate running the entire world auto fleet on ethanol or bio-diesel, advocate strict laws limiting greenhouse emmisions, advocate vast swaths of land be put off-limits to economic development--all of which I favor by the way--but when someone advocates ending population growth in the country, they get hit with criticisms of being "impractical" or "uneconomic."     On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

  • re:

    Since none of your comments responded to my points, I feel warranted to declare victory in this argument. On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses

  • Immigration

    How come environmentalists abandon their "think globally, act locally" slogan when it comes to overpopulation? I'd think the true environmental response to immigration would be to call for the complete end to immigration to the country, except to keep population levels steady.On How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. posted 3 years, 7 months ago 25 Responses