CableLight
Master Don Juan
Phrozen - Am I a human? What have I said about humanity? We're all in this thing, all of us, there are no innocents. The plight of the natural world is the burden we all should take responsibility for. Rather than repeat myself to you later, I'll continue this below...
Photo - Like I said, there are no innocents. I don't recall ever directly saying "losing 150,000 people is going to solve the problem with nature," and I'm still not going to. I will say, again, that the less people in the world, the better for the world as a whole. Maybe not for humanity, but humanity isn't very good for the world.
As for my posts being inconsistent, it's like I said: Maybe replying to other people's posts and adding on to my replies might make them seem inconsistent to you, but to me I'm covering all the bases as best as I can without having to write a twenty-page thesis statement. As for "incoherent," I must disagree, but it's in the perspective of the reader in terms of what they're able to understand so I'll leave it at that.
You're right - All living creatures adapt to nature to survive. Survival is of prime importance to all creatures. There aren't too many other creatures, however, that do it the way we do. Maybe if you show me another species as selfish as ours or that destroys its own environment as well as the environment of other creatures the way we do I'll shut up, but I don't see this challenge being met.
Also, like I said earlier - I'm not wishing death upon others for my own agenda. I am saying, however, that with the slow, painful death humans are enstilling on the world that losing chunks of our population shouldn't be taken as harshly as it is. I mean, we can lose an entire species or two and sure, a group of activists will be all over it, but the general population isn't going to care unless it's something like cows that we depend on. Yet, lose an almost marginally inconsequential piece of our population and we all freak out like it's, ironically, the end of the world. Tell me the logic in that. That's why, in my first post, I said this "tragedy" isn't so tragic.
Now, do I consider myself a huge boon to the world (Phrozen)? Well, as fun as it is to inflate our own egos, I'm not going to answer that. I will say, however, that I'll certainly try to be. I'm certainly aiming to get as many people as I can to understand the grand scheme of things rather than just themselves, but I don't have a crystal ball so we'll see.
I'lll say this again - The world is bigger than you, me, them, us. It's about everything; the whole picture, if you will. If you are, in any way, concerned about the world and hoping to insure it's still here for any future generations, then I suggest you understand this. Let us just hope they'll somehow have a better natural world than we do.
Photo - Like I said, there are no innocents. I don't recall ever directly saying "losing 150,000 people is going to solve the problem with nature," and I'm still not going to. I will say, again, that the less people in the world, the better for the world as a whole. Maybe not for humanity, but humanity isn't very good for the world.
As for my posts being inconsistent, it's like I said: Maybe replying to other people's posts and adding on to my replies might make them seem inconsistent to you, but to me I'm covering all the bases as best as I can without having to write a twenty-page thesis statement. As for "incoherent," I must disagree, but it's in the perspective of the reader in terms of what they're able to understand so I'll leave it at that.
You're right - All living creatures adapt to nature to survive. Survival is of prime importance to all creatures. There aren't too many other creatures, however, that do it the way we do. Maybe if you show me another species as selfish as ours or that destroys its own environment as well as the environment of other creatures the way we do I'll shut up, but I don't see this challenge being met.
Also, like I said earlier - I'm not wishing death upon others for my own agenda. I am saying, however, that with the slow, painful death humans are enstilling on the world that losing chunks of our population shouldn't be taken as harshly as it is. I mean, we can lose an entire species or two and sure, a group of activists will be all over it, but the general population isn't going to care unless it's something like cows that we depend on. Yet, lose an almost marginally inconsequential piece of our population and we all freak out like it's, ironically, the end of the world. Tell me the logic in that. That's why, in my first post, I said this "tragedy" isn't so tragic.
Now, do I consider myself a huge boon to the world (Phrozen)? Well, as fun as it is to inflate our own egos, I'm not going to answer that. I will say, however, that I'll certainly try to be. I'm certainly aiming to get as many people as I can to understand the grand scheme of things rather than just themselves, but I don't have a crystal ball so we'll see.
I'lll say this again - The world is bigger than you, me, them, us. It's about everything; the whole picture, if you will. If you are, in any way, concerned about the world and hoping to insure it's still here for any future generations, then I suggest you understand this. Let us just hope they'll somehow have a better natural world than we do.
