Comments Leprof has made

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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, 9 months ago 22 Responses

  • 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

  • apology

    I apologize, upon having re-read my first post, to any who may be offended by the terrorism reference.  The comment was in poor taste, was written in poor judgement, and poorly articulated the point that I wished to make (that decreased population is a great thing for the environment).  I hope that readers will be able to ignore this comment, and I deeply and sincerely apologize to those who cannot.  I invite anyone who might have editing capabilities to strike that comment from the post.  Thank you and my apologies.On Repeat after me: Humans are part of the environment posted 3 years, 4 months ago 18 Responses

  • one more thing

    I also would not posit that the environmental do-gooder should stop riding his or her bike.  I think that the positive example set by this action is probably more than enough to offset any ambiguity caused by the slightly increased life expectancy of that person.  I think that in general, healthy environmental actions are helpful, and they offset problems associated with life expectancy.  My main quarrel is with the idea that actions that benefit humans necessarily benefit the environment on the grounds that humans are a part of the environment.  Plus, biking around town (and any other form of outdoor recreation) is a great way to get more in touch with and involved in our environment.  On Repeat after me: Humans are part of the environment posted 3 years, 4 months ago 18 Responses

  • Humans are bad for the environment

    Humans are part of the environment, but so is kudzu, Microstygia, European Starling (S. vulgaris), carp, etc here in the South.  Heck, plastic bags, as a "natural waste product" of a natural part of the environment (i.e. us), are part of the environment themselves.  An "abiotic factor," to dig up the bio textbook.
    The point is, that aspects of the environment can be bad, and we would be better off if we got rid of them.  Microstygia, naturalized here from Japan, is a huge problem because Microstygia HAS been so successful at becoming part of our environment.
    Make no mistake, humans are bad for the environment.  When was the last time that you heard of a brewing environmental catastrophe that is not caused by humans?

    Would I advocate for the voluntary extinction of the human race?  Probably not.  But I think it clear that the environment would benefit were we, as a species, to get our affairs in order and ride our bikes off of cliffs.

    Think about it in terms of biodiversity.  The perpetuation of the human race is likely to come at the necessary trade off of several thousand or million other species.  And if we accept, from an ecological standpoint, that humans are merely another part of the environment, then one hardly needs to puzzle over which option is better for the environment (on the one hand we have humans, on the other, the overall wellbeing of the entire biosphere...)

    I understand the argument that it may be beneficial to selectively perpetuate those humans who seek to do environmental good (i.e. those who might bike to avoid greenhouse and particulate emmissions).  However, like it or not, such people still generally do net harm to the environment.  Anyone has an ecological footprint; as members of an affluent society, you and I have especially large ones.  I hold that a rare few (and here I'm thinking about environmentalists of the caliber of Chico Mendes and the like) who actually do net good in the world, offsetting their own footprint by positively impacting the footprints of many others.  
    I don't know any of you, and I don't want to make blanket statements that may or may not be true about those participating in this discussion, but I am sure that a vast majority of environmentalists, while they try to positively impact the environmental lives of others, get no where near far enough to offset their own consumption of resources.
    Every time you or I eat, whether its organic or local or whatever, we contribute to the demand for (and shortage of) arable land, and thus desertification, forest destruction, and so forth.  

    Like it or not (I sure don't) the environment is worse off for greater population, and the most hardcore of environmentaists would probably run around committing violent acts of terror (which I would not even CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT to have ANY merit).  
    Yup, so inflation and drug shortages may be good for the environment.

    One important distinction, however, is that in the developping world, environmental good is very tied to educational successes, which in turn are somewhat tied to standard of human life.  So, to a point, environmental success does depend on the standard of living.  We have far exceeded this threshold in the western world.On Repeat after me: Humans are part of the environment posted 3 years, 4 months ago 18 Responses