Geek Speak — HabitableZone

Geek Speak » in reply to "Tree hugger? What are these 'tree-huggers' of which you speak?"

Well at least you have a specific complaint in this last post
alcaray — (archived)

so we don't have to rail against your stereotype any more.

Problem is, we've done ANWAR to death, at least by my standards. I think wilderness has obvious, intrinsic value to humans. If it did not, I would still guess that it probably has intrinsic value to humans that humans are too stupid to have figured out yet. There is no proof that replacing all wilderness with structures made by man, will result in a world that can maintain itself, even postulating man's attempt to regulate and limit the effects (which you would naturally oppose). Nature has been here a lot longer than we have. Before you remove it, it usually pays to think about it once or twice.

In general, I don't think it's a good idea to rip all hydrocarbons out of the earth's crust and combine them with oxygen. I suspect it will have effects that, once felt, will be very difficult for us to live with.

How come you never rant about the tree-huggers in Florida? You've made due-dilligence references, but nothing like the red-faced, spittle-launching rages you manage when talking about Alaska.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (71 posts)