You may be a plant bigot if.....
1. You find yourself thinking you are somehow better than the tree standing in your back yard. In fact, it borders on hatred when looking at those pesky dandylions.
2. You think mowing your lawn is just a job and not mass genocide on a global scale.
3. You become enraged when watching the scene in Lord of the Rings when the trees come alive and save the world from the "bad guys".
4. You become a vegan.
5. Eating plants for your own selfish nutrition needs and maiming and tortoring them to keep your yard looking "good" are not enough. No, no, no. Then on Halloween you somehow feel the need to take that knife to a jackolantern. What sick puppies human being are.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23322
Originally posted by whodeydamn those plant bigots... what can we do, what can we do to save the mighty plant? #5 sounds exceptionally dastardly.
You may be a plant bigot if.....
1. You find yourself thinking you are somehow better than the tree standing in your back yard. In fact, it borders on hatred when looking at those pesky dandylions.
2. You think mowing your lawn is just a job and not mass genocide on a global scale.
3. You become enraged when watching the scene in Lord of the Ring ...[text shortened]... ehow feel the need to take that knife to a jackolantern. What sick puppies human being are.
Originally posted by sh76"If you're a real environmentalist, you'll cover yourself with mulch right up to your neck and then shoot yourself in the head."
What about killing humans, who produce CO2?
http://tpc-culturevultures.blogspot.com/2010/04/mulch-and-t-coraghessan-boyle.html
That is, with a biodegradable bullet.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOnly very rarely.
Agriculture is CO2-neutral.
Depending on farming practices, agriculture may be storing more carbon in the soil or depleting it. In the world today, agriculture on average is depleting the soils of carbon and is probably one of the largest sources of CO2.
This can be reversed with better farming practices. Interestingly, these better practices actually include animals.
This is the first reference I could find but there are many others on the web:
http://www.soilcarbon.com.au/
It must also be noted that animals produce global warming gas far more potent than CO2 (methane) and they are not neutral at all in that respect.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23322
Originally posted by VoidSpiritglobal warming is not fake, the debate is whether it has been man-enhanced or not... which it has, obviously. the earth changing its temperature is normal throughout history, we're just lucky at this moment in time conditions are perfect on earth for us humans to thrive. it's a short window though in terms of the earths age, keeping enjoying it with your head under the sand, please.
if you're worried about the fake threat of global warming
Originally posted by trev33it's not obvious if there is a debate about it. the threat itself is not obvious since there is proof that the earth has been a lot hotter on average than the current average, there has been a lot more C02 in the atmosphere in the past, and during those times, much larger plants (and animals!) thrived and the arctic ice didn't melt.
global warming is not fake, the debate is whether it has been man-enhanced or not... which it has, obviously. the earth changing its temperature is normal throughout history, we're just lucky at this moment in time conditions are perfect on earth for us humans to thrive. it's a short window though in terms of the earths age, keeping enjoying it with your head under the sand, please.
Originally posted by trev33No such 'debate' exists - (except on forums such as these and in the US government where it is a politically motivated issue). In scientific circles it is a known fact that the earth is warming and that man is largely responsible.
[b]global warming is not fake, the debate is whether it has been man-enhanced or not... which it has, obviously./b]
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe arctic ice did melt.
the threat itself is not obvious since there is proof that the earth has been a lot hotter on average than the current average, there has been a lot more C02 in the atmosphere in the past, and during those times, much larger plants (and animals!) thrived and the arctic ice didn't melt.
The threat is not to large animals thriving or not, the threat is to us humans and our current civilization. Its actually more about which would be more expensive to us: dealing with climate change or reversing it. And if we choose to deal with it (which to some extent is inevitable already), to make plans to minimize the costs. eg don't build on land that will soon be flooded by the rising sea.