those damned hippies!
13-Nov-2006, 04:49 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: kaladar
Posts: 247
those damned hippies!
my other thread didnt go well, tell me your thoughts on green peace, and enviromentalist, good or bad, post it up, reasons would be nice.... fyi- this is for a school project....
13-Nov-2006, 06:40 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: kaladar
Posts: 247
it turned into a weed discussion, i was hoping people would opposse the title, and write their views, or agree with it, and state their views.... i know my results wont be great, but hell, its worth a shot?
14-Nov-2006, 12:00 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: H.O.
Posts: 1,357
I think if you are seeking the paradigm of thinking (the way people come to view the world), those who support environmental efforts come to the decision that humans are not the paramount necessity for our shared global destiny.
Within this environmental approach to viewing the world, activists would regard our legal system and the laws that govern us to be biased toward a human perspective. In other words we are human-supremacists; under the assumption that people's needs and wants are what should be privied.
(but who writes these rules on life?)
Greenpeace activists would argue that plants and wildlife (nature) is tantamount in necessity, and human beings possess the potential as benefactors of this earth since for millenia they have proven themselves to be at the top of the food change, and therefore most capable of constructing a worldly framework (the way the world works).
One of there main arguments would be that there is a point of no return. This suggests a threshhold has been crossed where we no longer can return the world to a self-sustaining ecological system. Some may argue we have surpassed that threshold and human and animal-kind is doomed to self-destruction. Other environmentalists would suggest there is still hope.
I am refering to ideas like the depletion of the ozone layer, slash and burn farming techniques in Brazil, and methane byproducts in Nigerian oil production. Have we gone to far already?
Is this helpful?
(I am no activist.)
Within this environmental approach to viewing the world, activists would regard our legal system and the laws that govern us to be biased toward a human perspective. In other words we are human-supremacists; under the assumption that people's needs and wants are what should be privied.
(but who writes these rules on life?)
Greenpeace activists would argue that plants and wildlife (nature) is tantamount in necessity, and human beings possess the potential as benefactors of this earth since for millenia they have proven themselves to be at the top of the food change, and therefore most capable of constructing a worldly framework (the way the world works).
One of there main arguments would be that there is a point of no return. This suggests a threshhold has been crossed where we no longer can return the world to a self-sustaining ecological system. Some may argue we have surpassed that threshold and human and animal-kind is doomed to self-destruction. Other environmentalists would suggest there is still hope.
I am refering to ideas like the depletion of the ozone layer, slash and burn farming techniques in Brazil, and methane byproducts in Nigerian oil production. Have we gone to far already?
Is this helpful?
(I am no activist.)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bruce fee
Chit-Chat
40
13-Mar-2008 02:07 AM
Double_B
Chit-Chat
16
08-May-2006 09:59 PM
