Is it 'ok' to be a republican, NRA member, Christian who eats LOTS of meat and own a Prius?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brandon n @ May 7 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]436789[/snapback]</div>

Goodness! I have never had another Prius driver NOT wave to me. It is like one big happy family.
And if we meet someone at a stop that is driving a Prius, chatter usually ensues. It is great!

As to the original poster. I do think it is ok to be a Prius owner and be all of the things you said you are. My hubby has guns, I like to shoot them, we are Christians, we eat a lot of meat and are mostly "conservative". So we probably have a lot in common. We also do want to help with saving the rainforest, we like to recycle, we teach our kids about respecting the earth and being good stewards of everything God has made. I think these things are pretty important too. No, I don't eat whales or want to burn the rainforest, lol! But being a good Christian, I will agree to disagree in love.

God Bless you for driving a Prius! EVERYONE should own one!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ May 14 2007, 08:35 PM) [snapback]442036[/snapback]</div>

So where are you moving to? Give me the country, and I will provide you a laundry list of evil deeds that country has done to their own people or to other countries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 12 2007, 08:59 PM) [snapback]440787[/snapback]</div>

Whoa, who let you pass the class for criminal intentions? Rape is not about sex, it is about control. How would you explain the multiple senior citizen women who get raped in broad daylight, or all of the children who are raped everyday? That is just such a narrow minded, juvenile view. I suppose it is ok for a man to be raped in prison because he was stupid enough to get thrown in prison in the first place. If you say that is ok, perhaps you are a man of the "down low" variety? Probably not, but instead of making broad generalizations of thinking that you KNOW what is correct or not, who is stupid or not, etc... you should rethink your comment. Perhaps you are masquerading as a Christian. NO Christian I know is ever going to claim that it is ok to rape someone, because hey, they were stupid and asking for it. Or that you were asking for it to be mugged. Ahem, that is NOT what Jesus was about. Dust off the bible, sir, before claiming you are something that you obviously aren't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May, 06:14 AM) [snapback]442340[/snapback]</div>

So what? I'm talking about now (or actually last summer - as I said, we decided to stick it out). Or is this your way of excusing the current administration for their poor (that is a nice word for it) performance?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 15 2007, 06:14 AM) [snapback]442340[/snapback]</div>

Making comparisons to other "evil deeds" does not reduce our responsibility to do better. That is a very bad analogy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ May 14 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]442036[/snapback]</div>

Where would you go that doesn't have their own set of equally frustrating issues? Not saying you shouldn't do what is right for you, but what country would you consider moving to?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jboaa @ May 15 2007, 08:58 AM) [snapback]442327[/snapback]</div>

Now, I live in the South, too, and I expected Prius drivers to know that the etiquette is to wave at me. Out in the country where we live everyone on the roads waves at each other, total strangers and all. But, no. Not the Prius drivers. Maybe they are all too busy watching their energy displays.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jboaa @ May 15 2007, 08:58 AM) [snapback]442327[/snapback]</div>

I think we have saved too many alligators. Why are we saving things that eat us? I don't live in their natural habitat (that's about 70 miles away) but they are showing up here and you can't legally remove them. They sneak into ponds. Next thing you know, they'll be sneaking up on children whose parents don't know there are alligators in the neighborhood.

Would we have saved the dinosaurs?

Does everything need saving? (Smallpox, TB, box jellyfish, etc.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 15 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]442528[/snapback]</div>

I hope you are being sarcastic or else you are displaying a huge amount of ecological/biological ignorance.

*edit*

I appologize. That was rather rude of me.

Instead I will ask do you have an biological/ecological training? Do you understand the concepts of biodiversity and ecosystems and what they provide us with? To answer your question. Yes, everything is worth saving. Down to the tiniest bacterium. We cannot know at this point in time which species are best to keep and which ones could be allowed to disapear. If they go extinct on their own at the normal rate then that is fine and dandy (maybe it is maybe it isn't) but we should not exacerbate the issue to supply our own greed. Entering the 6th major extinction and knowing we play a huge parts is rather disheartening.

[not directly at any one particular person]
To dismiss any of this is the utmost in anthropocentrism and arrogance that any one person can display. To be unaware of the importance of this issue is totally understandable most of us would be very willing to help educate you on the subject so you have a better understanding of what exactly is at stake.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ May 6 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]436464[/snapback]</div>

Let's not forget the vile from the left wing pundits and websites.

 

I woke up as usual around 10:30 and noted with deep satisfaction that the prols were already working for no less than 3 hours, sweating around the steel mills and automobile plants, making the CEO rich. I had a light Atkins-friendly breakfast consisting of a pound of Beluga caviar and poached eggs of American Bald Eagle. I yelled a little at the servants for failing to procure freshly chopped dolphin liver, but it was too early to get really loud.

I then went for the unnecessary drive in my Cadillac SUV dragging behind me a trailer with a huge boat, which I did not need, but it looked impressive. I drove for about 200 miles in the second gear, just wasting gas. When I pulled up to the gas station, I spilled at least a pint of gas on the ground. They say it buggers up the ozone layer. I like that! You didn’t pay for it, so don’t tell me what to do with it! To cause further damage to the atmosphere, I had a lunch of beans.

I noticed a blind beggar with the hat and some coins. I swiped the money and send it as a donation to Halliburton. I’m sure they’ll employ this capital better than the useless beggar.

While chopping down the ugly 400 year old oak tree, I noticed a stray cat. I tortured it a little, to offer myself a pleasant diversion.

It was a fulfilling and useful day.



www.evilconservatives.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 15 2007, 01:44 PM) [snapback]442542[/snapback]</div>

I understand the science of ecological systems and the myriad important roles that creatures and plants play, but I do not understand the religion of ecology.

I doubt your understanding is so deep that you can afford not to consider questioning what you think you know.

My question is an honest one and should not be so airily dismissed. To do so shows remarkable hubris and unattractive self-righteousness.

Is everything worth saving?

The earth is not the way it was a million years ago, and is not the way it will be a million years from now. Things change, and we have already changed it.

If all life, down to the smallest bacterium, is worth saving, does that mean you are against abortion?

But that's not where I want to go with this. Back on topic. To play God and decide what stays and what goes has given us kudzu and other non-native afflictions.

On the other hand, how smart are we if we don't permit people to take alligators out of their ponds in areas where alligators are not native (and where small children are)?

Wouldn't the world be a better place if we "nuked" all the fire ants? How about the parasites that cause blindness in Africa (I know you kill them with Ivermectin, but can't remember the name.)

I, for one, do not mourn the dinosaurs' demise. Too big, too many teeth. Would total my Prius if I hit one on the highway, and would no doubt eat my dog and then me.

And the only reason to keep our smallpox sample is in case we need it to combat an unexpected outbreak or another disease (or cure).

The easiest answer is to say "save everything." But is it the smartest?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 15 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]442693[/snapback]</div>

Ok, I'll reiterate.

Save everything no. But do not influence the natural system in such overwhelming ways that would lead to a premature demise of a particular creature or whole ecosystems like we currently are doing.

Of course the earth is not the same as millions of years ago, yet by assuming that change is ok without taking into consideration "rate of change" is to miss part of the big picture. We as a specie are overspecializing and as such are becoming increasingly reliant on our human infrastructures which rely 1005 on natural infrastructure. Break down the natural systems faster than they can recover and you endanger our own systems. I'm sure you can see where this is leading.

As a biology major I am well aware on invasive species and there are scenarios where I feel we "play god" when attempting to restore and ecosystem to it's prior condition before human impact. There are good arguements in this area. Should we we remove aligators that have entered non-native habitat like the pools you mention? Yes and no. If a gator enters your swimming pool then yes, remove it yet keep in mind the "why". Why did it move there in the first place? Is it because you have crept into its natural habitat because of sprawl? Are its native habitats being shrunk due to urbanization and water drainage so its now expanding population cannot recover grounds that it once inhabited?

Using your anology we will continue to develop land for human needs then then punish the natural systems for "getting in our face". This will continue until we have severely degraded theecosystems that support us to the point we end up suffering for it. We've seen this throughout human history.

There is a great arguement on disease and pests. Should be eradicate them? One part of me says yes of course, especially if I could be effected. The other side of me says of course not. That is just one more mechanism of nature to cull numbers and keep populations down. By curing all diseases or eradicating "pests" we do ourselves the diservice of allowing out populations to grow to large and outstrip our resources which can and has led to civilizational weakness and collapse.

Against abortion? Not usually but it all depends on the context. You are bringing it in to ethical terms. I was simply using logical terms in the above case.

 

"we should not exacerbate the issue to supply our own greed. Entering the 6th major extinction and knowing we play a huge parts is rather disheartening."

Probably not, and yes it is.
BUT! All life forms will expand to fulfill whatever niche in an ecosystem that it can, and will compete to death with other types of animals as well as it's own to do so. That's ecology 101. Why are humans any different? It might not be right or smart, but its engrained in our DNA to look out for ourselves and immediate family first, then our neighbors, then our statemen, and right on down the line to bacterium.
So while it is disheartening, it is fully expected and completely natural. The question is wether all humans will be part of the extinction, or certain types of humans, certain locations of humans, or just the poor humans from the different types/locations. That's what we have an effect on.

Humans are a virus to the earth. We either find a state of stasis with it, or we will not survive. The earth and other life will live on long after humans, even if we nuke the whole thing into oblivion, some life will find a way and start the whole process over again without us. Besides the earth does not have a life plan of who should live on it, it is merely the petri dish all life fights over.

The challenge humans have now, is finding that sustainable (as opposed to growing) stasis with the earth, such that we ensure the survival of our children. If populations are past what the earth can sustainably carry, people will die off, and if the past is any clue to the future, resources and the wars over them will decide which groups of people can keep their own children alive. Mother nature is a cruel beotch to be feared an respected, not a happy bosom to keep us warm and fed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 15 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]442719[/snapback]</div>

There is no arguement from me on what you said. The point is finding a sustainable quality of life. Our actions are leading us in a direction of unsustainability (we are there) and ultimately a reduced quality of life. Should we learn from the cues of nature and try to limit ourselves and try to find a "natural balance check" that suits us or shall we let nature choose which way she wants to reduce our numbers? We are different than nearly every other organism in that we have some choices we can make about our future so while we are entirely subject to the natural laws, we can choose to work with them instead of against them then suffer the consequenses of breaking or bending them too far.

Remember that not all of nature chooses to fight. Many choose to cooperate and have done remarkably well because of it. Think endosymbiosis.

 

I agree with your principle, but I'm not sure it's feasable.
The VAST majority of human beings do not understand the concepts you and I are touching on here, and hence cannot understand the remarkable effort it would take to try and "Manage" human population to that kind of level. Whenever you ration anything, people and their inherent greed will find ways to cheat the system. As I've said before on Peak oil, we could all give oil up cold turkey, only to have China burn up what we then wouldn't be burning. Sadly, I don't believe humans are capable of avoiding the natural population cycles we see with EVERY other species. I'm NOT saying we shouldn't try, but I think we need to temper our expectations a little. This isn't utopia we live on and never will be. Humans for the most part are incapable of capping populations, consumption, etc. Just like a tree won't stop growing for fear of blocking the light of it's seedlings. It just does what it does, day after day. And so do most humans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 15 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]442735[/snapback]</div>

Again I agree with you. I don't want to emotionally but I do because our history shows it to be so.

I am yet optimistic though. Population control by obvious methods likely won't work like you stated. But by studying and promoting the unobvious methods like empowerment of women, social security developments etc. maybe there is hope. Nearly all highly developed countries have a low population growth rate. Yet the questions is, how do we get developing nations to our levels without putting them on the same path we took to achieve this level. Leapfrogging is great and all but realistically can it be done? I would like to think so and I will work to attempt this but the other side of me tends to agree with you. Nature will decide.

That is one point I usually like to stress. We are not trying to save the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 5 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]436082[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 15 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]442655[/snapback]</div>

The only good thing that I can say about Glenn Beck is that he is slightly less stupid than Rush Limbaugh.

 

Re: Is it 'ok' to be a republican, NRA member, Christian who eats LOTS of meat and own a Prius?

Of course thats ok. My family has 3 priuses and while my dad has been pro saving the enviroment latly, we are all conservative repubicans. In fact I am currently looking for a bumpersticker that says something like "I swear im conservative even though I drive a prius"