End of the World?
August 22, 2006 1:03 PM Subscribe
Confronting the New Misanthropy. "The big question is not whether humans will survive this century, but whether our faith in humanity will survive it"
Not according to the last post, it won't.
posted by billysumday at 1:09 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by billysumday at 1:09 PM on August 22, 2006
My grandson bets you one trillion yuan we're still here in 100 years time.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:16 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:16 PM on August 22, 2006
Don't worry - faith in humanity disappeared in the 20th century.
posted by Termite at 1:17 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by Termite at 1:17 PM on August 22, 2006
I clicked the link and saw a whole bunch of words. I kept waiting for them to cohere into something like a thesis, but they never did.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:23 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:23 PM on August 22, 2006
See also: the war on everything
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:26 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:26 PM on August 22, 2006
I hate evrybody. I don't want to, but they force me to.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:34 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:34 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
This Furedi guy gets PAID for that? Golly, I can say obvious stuff too!
posted by davy at 1:36 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by davy at 1:36 PM on August 22, 2006
All of today's various doomsday scenarios - whether it's the millennium bug, oil depletion, global warming, avian flu or the destruction of biodiversity - emphasise human culpability. Their premise is that the human species is essentially destructive and morally bankrupt. '
no, in the case of global warming, the premise is that a real measurable change in the environment is taking place, and the change is demonstrably linked to certain extremely historically unique patterns of human activity, and btw, if we want to stop it from getting worse, we might consider examining some of those activities--global warming is science, people, not moral philosophy or cultural studies 101! just keep yammering away like you are and see where it gets you, that's all i've got left to say on the subject.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:38 PM on August 22, 2006
no, in the case of global warming, the premise is that a real measurable change in the environment is taking place, and the change is demonstrably linked to certain extremely historically unique patterns of human activity, and btw, if we want to stop it from getting worse, we might consider examining some of those activities--global warming is science, people, not moral philosophy or cultural studies 101! just keep yammering away like you are and see where it gets you, that's all i've got left to say on the subject.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:38 PM on August 22, 2006
misanthropy is a growing problem though, so the more general point stands, imo.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:39 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by saulgoodman at 1:39 PM on August 22, 2006
it was teen wolf that destroyed it, wasn't it keswick?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:41 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by saulgoodman at 1:41 PM on August 22, 2006
Death to all extremists. No exceptions.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:43 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:43 PM on August 22, 2006
teen wolf 2, actually, and there were other mitigating factors.
posted by keswick at 1:44 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by keswick at 1:44 PM on August 22, 2006
All your favorite people suck.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 1:50 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by Hypnic jerk at 1:50 PM on August 22, 2006
He's just trying to dress up Ann Coulter's latest screed against thinking people in better language. "Oooh, those nasty liberals hate humans!". Note that the first thing he does is attach misanthropy to environmental concern, then he goes on to associate misanthropy with hate crimes laws, etc. I'm surprised he didn't manage to claim that you're a misanthrope if you support the estate tax.
Truth is that misanthropy is pretty much the sole possession of the religious right, and has been ever since Gutama Siddhartha started the concept of salvationism. All major modern religions rely, at their core, on misanthropy. Don't believe me? Go read any tract from any religion major religion (and no, Wiccans don't count as a major religion. They don't make tracts either, come to it....)
I'm not sure what is meant by "faith in humanity", but while I don't think that humanity as a whole is all cute and cuddly, I hardly think we're a bunch of depraved psychos. What amuses me is that people seem to think those are the only two choices for how to think of humanity. How about a realistic view: humans are mostly just a bunch of schmoes who want to get along, and who tend to fall into agreement with charismatic people. The exceptions seem to be just about evenly split between really great guys and evil bastards. For every Hitler I can point to a Gandhi (or vice versa for you depressing types). We tend to notice the evil bastards more because, well, a pile of corpses is more noticeable than a cure for a disease, or a guy who makes life better for everyone.
posted by sotonohito at 1:56 PM on August 22, 2006
Truth is that misanthropy is pretty much the sole possession of the religious right, and has been ever since Gutama Siddhartha started the concept of salvationism. All major modern religions rely, at their core, on misanthropy. Don't believe me? Go read any tract from any religion major religion (and no, Wiccans don't count as a major religion. They don't make tracts either, come to it....)
I'm not sure what is meant by "faith in humanity", but while I don't think that humanity as a whole is all cute and cuddly, I hardly think we're a bunch of depraved psychos. What amuses me is that people seem to think those are the only two choices for how to think of humanity. How about a realistic view: humans are mostly just a bunch of schmoes who want to get along, and who tend to fall into agreement with charismatic people. The exceptions seem to be just about evenly split between really great guys and evil bastards. For every Hitler I can point to a Gandhi (or vice versa for you depressing types). We tend to notice the evil bastards more because, well, a pile of corpses is more noticeable than a cure for a disease, or a guy who makes life better for everyone.
posted by sotonohito at 1:56 PM on August 22, 2006
The rising popularity of a term like 'ecological footprint' shows how much resonance the association of normal human activity with destruction has today. This term, which implies that having an impact on the environment is necessarily a bad thing, is rarely criticised for its misanthropic assumptions.
Yes, why doesn't the damn liberal media cover all the *good* stories about what we're doing to the environment?
posted by uosuaq at 1:57 PM on August 22, 2006
Yes, why doesn't the damn liberal media cover all the *good* stories about what we're doing to the environment?
posted by uosuaq at 1:57 PM on August 22, 2006
i think that there is a definate difference between acknowledging that every society has serious social flaws that lead to serious problems, and believing that humans in general are completely without merit. We shouldnt despair at this, but instead buckle down, stop wallowing in our history, and step up and produce solutions to our serious, but tractable problems....
posted by pucklermuskau at 1:58 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by pucklermuskau at 1:58 PM on August 22, 2006
the points he is making are contradictory...he seems to be saying that environmentalism is a concern for the environment over our species, but this ignores that environmental concerns are a hot topic of discussion now because of potential threat to our species, not the threat to earth or other species (which we've always masterfully ignored as a society)--so it is more like the willful ignorance of these effects is misanthropic...
...yeah, humanizing the future is a noble ideal, but concern for environmental problems does more in its favor than to its detriment...it's going to be harder, for instance, to humanize cultures warring over drinking water, particularly given that we're not handling threatening oil shortages with any kind of grace...
posted by troybob at 2:01 PM on August 22, 2006
...yeah, humanizing the future is a noble ideal, but concern for environmental problems does more in its favor than to its detriment...it's going to be harder, for instance, to humanize cultures warring over drinking water, particularly given that we're not handling threatening oil shortages with any kind of grace...
posted by troybob at 2:01 PM on August 22, 2006
The rising popularity of a term like 'ecological footprint' shows how much resonance the association of normal human activity with destruction has today. This term, which implies that having an impact on the environment is necessarily a bad thing, is rarely criticised for its misanthropic assumptions.
That's because the term doesn't imply something negative, unless you already hate feet and the marks they leave behind. You have to hate people before evidence of them is considered bad.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:16 PM on August 22, 2006
That's because the term doesn't imply something negative, unless you already hate feet and the marks they leave behind. You have to hate people before evidence of them is considered bad.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:16 PM on August 22, 2006
"Oooh, those nasty liberals hate humans!"
a pile of corpses is more noticeable than a cure for a disease, or a guy who makes life better for everyone
This is only true for "those nasty [leftist] liberals". Your stereotypical leftist sees only corpses and doom, and doesn't see how the evil capitalist system of the world actually can make life better for everyone. Non-leftists see this every day, and hence aren't miserable misanthropic bastards.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:24 PM on August 22, 2006
a pile of corpses is more noticeable than a cure for a disease, or a guy who makes life better for everyone
This is only true for "those nasty [leftist] liberals". Your stereotypical leftist sees only corpses and doom, and doesn't see how the evil capitalist system of the world actually can make life better for everyone. Non-leftists see this every day, and hence aren't miserable misanthropic bastards.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:24 PM on August 22, 2006
So would I be correct in guessing this guy is another bitter ex-Marxist? His writing practically screams that to me.
When he mentioned Collapse as an example of this new misanthropy, I felt like screaming. Apparently making a timely warning about the heavy human cost of unsustainable growth and consumption is misanthropic. This whole argument is a massive strawman, which is pretty much a given when someone starts using the Gaia loons to characterise the whole environmental movement.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:27 PM on August 22, 2006
When he mentioned Collapse as an example of this new misanthropy, I felt like screaming. Apparently making a timely warning about the heavy human cost of unsustainable growth and consumption is misanthropic. This whole argument is a massive strawman, which is pretty much a given when someone starts using the Gaia loons to characterise the whole environmental movement.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:27 PM on August 22, 2006
my liberalism sees that the evil capitalist system of the world actually can make life better but doesn't understand why it isn't permitted to do so
posted by troybob at 2:29 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by troybob at 2:29 PM on August 22, 2006
Look at the bright side--our faith in humanity may not survive, but there undoubtedly will be faithy alternatives available for a reasonable fee.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:31 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:31 PM on August 22, 2006
hoverboards: That sound you hear is me laughing. You were being sarcastic, yes?
posted by sotonohito at 2:31 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by sotonohito at 2:31 PM on August 22, 2006
Strange position. So genetics and neuroscience are too depressing and overrated but we need more science and technology?
I don't think it helps to say "we humans are great all around, no need to understand ourselves, let's just march on and build a nice shiny future!". Such projects will always backfire because of human nature.
posted by vertriebskonzept at 2:37 PM on August 22, 2006
I don't think it helps to say "we humans are great all around, no need to understand ourselves, let's just march on and build a nice shiny future!". Such projects will always backfire because of human nature.
posted by vertriebskonzept at 2:37 PM on August 22, 2006
No, I was not being sarcastic. There is a reason doom-mongering leftist FPPs outnumber doom-mongering rightist FPPs by, what is it, a thousand to one? It's because left-liberals see no good things happening.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:50 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:50 PM on August 22, 2006
Oh, sure. Right-wingers see apples, unicorns, bunny rabbits, dappled sunshine, sweet adorable kittens, and monarch butterflies everywhere! Tra la la la la!
posted by blucevalo at 2:53 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by blucevalo at 2:53 PM on August 22, 2006
There is a reason doom-mongering leftist FPPs outnumber doom-mongering rightist FPPs by, what is it, a thousand to one?
i think it is more because leftists see doom as preventable and try to make an effort, and rightists see it as happy camping...which is probably why warmongering rightists outnumber warmongering leftists by, what is it, a thousand to one?
posted by troybob at 3:04 PM on August 22, 2006
i think it is more because leftists see doom as preventable and try to make an effort, and rightists see it as happy camping...which is probably why warmongering rightists outnumber warmongering leftists by, what is it, a thousand to one?
posted by troybob at 3:04 PM on August 22, 2006
Right-wingers see apples, unicorns, ...
They sure didn't during the Clinton administration. These days rose colored blinders all the rage, I guess.
posted by maryh at 3:06 PM on August 22, 2006
They sure didn't during the Clinton administration. These days rose colored blinders all the rage, I guess.
posted by maryh at 3:06 PM on August 22, 2006
I'm talking about much more than war-style doom, but even in the case of Iraq, just look at the standard leftist position:
* This is worse than Vietnam
* Millions of people will die
* The draft will return
* The war will expand into a regional, then global conflict
(As for the rightist position on the war, well, that's clearly indefensible for its own special reasons.)
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:17 PM on August 22, 2006
* This is worse than Vietnam
* Millions of people will die
* The draft will return
* The war will expand into a regional, then global conflict
(As for the rightist position on the war, well, that's clearly indefensible for its own special reasons.)
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:17 PM on August 22, 2006
As opposed to being outbred by the Islamic/ Mexican masses, degeneracy of society, etc., etc.? There's plenty of pessimism on the right, it just doesn't show up much around here because this is a left-wing kinda place.
posted by furiousthought at 3:23 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by furiousthought at 3:23 PM on August 22, 2006
well, i'm just sayin i don't see any leftists who believe the bibilcal apocalypse will rise from the midde east, much less trying to give a helping hand to get it started...
posted by troybob at 3:26 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by troybob at 3:26 PM on August 22, 2006
No, I was not being sarcastic. There is a reason doom-mongering leftist FPPs outnumber doom-mongering rightist FPPs by, what is it, a thousand to one? It's because left-liberals see no good things happening.
No, it's because Metafilter is more left-liberal than rightist. or whatever.
Metafilter, while laudable, interesting, and informative, is not a focus group made of random Americans, designed to generate posts that accurately reflect the beliefs of society. sorry to burst that bubble.
posted by dubold at 3:33 PM on August 22, 2006
No, it's because Metafilter is more left-liberal than rightist. or whatever.
Metafilter, while laudable, interesting, and informative, is not a focus group made of random Americans, designed to generate posts that accurately reflect the beliefs of society. sorry to burst that bubble.
posted by dubold at 3:33 PM on August 22, 2006
well, i'm just sayin i don't see any leftists who believe the bibilcal apocalypse will rise from the midde east, much less trying to give a helping hand to get it started...
Here's a leftist apocalyptic Christian website.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:09 PM on August 22, 2006
Here's a leftist apocalyptic Christian website.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:09 PM on August 22, 2006
The point about 'ecological footprint' is that controlling (i.e. affecting) the environment should really be a positive thing, reflecting increasing human progress and control. Agriculture is an ecological footprint. Domesticated livestock is an ecological footprint. Manufacturing is ... etc. etc.
Essentially, to view an ecological footprint as being automatically a negative thing equates to a lack of confidence in human capacity. We have spent millenia attempting to overcome the restrictions that the environment places upon us, only to find that the greatest restriction of all is within our own minds.
It's been interesting to see the comments on this article. There's a depressing tendency on the liberal left to combine a self-image of open mindedness and rationality with extreme self delusion and incapacity to critique itself. It's a tendency that leads to the familiar proposition that the victories of the right are not because the left has proved itself irrelevant, smug, snobbish and opportunist, but because the masses are stupid, or because of a media conspiracy, or (more usually) both.
It's a view that's often expressed more or less overtly on MeFi, and rather neatly confirms the point that Frank Furedi is making, in that it reflects an utter loss of faith in (and, to be hones, fear of) the only the vast majority of humanity.
posted by Shinkicker at 4:47 PM on August 22, 2006
Essentially, to view an ecological footprint as being automatically a negative thing equates to a lack of confidence in human capacity. We have spent millenia attempting to overcome the restrictions that the environment places upon us, only to find that the greatest restriction of all is within our own minds.
It's been interesting to see the comments on this article. There's a depressing tendency on the liberal left to combine a self-image of open mindedness and rationality with extreme self delusion and incapacity to critique itself. It's a tendency that leads to the familiar proposition that the victories of the right are not because the left has proved itself irrelevant, smug, snobbish and opportunist, but because the masses are stupid, or because of a media conspiracy, or (more usually) both.
It's a view that's often expressed more or less overtly on MeFi, and rather neatly confirms the point that Frank Furedi is making, in that it reflects an utter loss of faith in (and, to be hones, fear of) the only the vast majority of humanity.
posted by Shinkicker at 4:47 PM on August 22, 2006
Many people seem concerned about whether or not humanity will survive. Nobody ever seems too concerned about whether or not humanity deserves to survive.
posted by nightchrome at 5:46 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by nightchrome at 5:46 PM on August 22, 2006
Shinkicker, I'm afraid I have to say that I think you are dead wrong. And so is Hoverboards.
For Hoverboards specifically, I'll call BS on his thesis and demand proof. Show me liberals who say that humanity is evil, degenerate, doomed, etc. Or, rather, show me prominent, listened to, liberals who say that. Random comments on blogs don't count, any more than it'd be fair for me to dig up the loons who comment on LGF and hold them out as proof that conservatives are all racist neo-nazis.
In my experience it is typically the conservative who says that humanity is doomed, or evil. Usually this is said in sneering reference to "liberal idealism" and the "foolish liberal belief that people are basically good". The hard right Christianity of the USA emphasizes with mind numbing frequency the bits of the Bible which say that people are so awful that God can't even stomach the sight of us except for the intervention of Jesus. They say, explicitly and often, that people are essentially evil and must be forced to do good by threat of punishment both in this life and the afterlife.
I see no doom and gloom from liberalism as a whole. Despite attempts by those who refuse to accept the consensus of most climatologists, the prime focus of liberals re: global warming is on what we can do to prevent catastrophe. I see no prominent liberals wallowing in nightmare scenarios. While we do *discuss* such things it is only to underline the importance of making what changes we can now, not to claim that the world is doomed and that humans are inherently vile. While the Ann Coulters, the Rush Limbaughs, the Michael Savages, chose to see any discussion of bad options as doom and gloom talk, thats BS and you know it.
I once made my living repairing computers. When I told a customer that their CPU fan was bad and that if they didn't replace it their processor would overheat and fail I wasn't trying to spread doom, I wasn't being depressing, I was telling him why he needed to spend $20. The same applies to discussions of global warming, it isn't wallowing in the miserable failures of humanity, its pointing out why we need to spend billions (hell, maybe trillions) of dollars to fix a problem.
As for the predictable, and pathetic, attempt to link modern liberalism with communism, I can only suggest that you pull your head out of the 1960's. The world has moved on, its time you did as well. While there is a fringe of die hard communists left I will suggest that they are to liberalism what the KKK is to conservatism. They're loud, they're embarrassing, and most liberals wish they'd just shut up because they give conservatives an opportunity to try to associate us with them. Communism is no more an aspect of modern liberalism than racism is an aspect of modern conservatism.
From my point of view it is conservatives who believe the worst about humanity. They say "if we don't outlaw gay sex everyone will turn gay and the species will go extinct!" They say "if we don't outlaw pornography we'll become a nation of degenerates!" They say "if we teach our children about sex they'll rut like animals!" They say "if we don't keep these books away from our children they will poison their minds and civilization will collapse!"
Or look at the rehtoric coming from the Bush administration: "You must be afraid! If you aren't afraid enough the big bad Islamofacists will get you! The terror alert level just rose another color! BOO!!!!"
As I said earlier, I'm not a believer in the notion that people are inherently good; there's too much evil in the world to believe that. Neither am I a believer in the idea that people are inherently evil; there's too much good in the world to belive that. People are just people, some are good, some are evil, and I think the vast majority just want to get along, do their jobs, and have some nice things.
I'll leave you with a simple observation: historically conservatives have been wrong about absolutely everything except communism. Around 1776 conservatives said "a nation has to have a king, the king is appointed by God, go against the king and civilization will crumble!" (see the doom and gloom?) Liberals thought it was a bunch of BS and they were right. Later on conservatives said "Slavery is necessary, blacks aren't really human anyway, if we stop keeping slaves civilization will crumble!" Liberals disagreed and, what do you know, civilization didn't crumble. Not long after that conservatives said "women can't have rights, its unnatural, God doesn't like it, give women rights and civilization will crumble!" Who, exactly, is it who's doom and gloom here?
posted by sotonohito at 6:07 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
For Hoverboards specifically, I'll call BS on his thesis and demand proof. Show me liberals who say that humanity is evil, degenerate, doomed, etc. Or, rather, show me prominent, listened to, liberals who say that. Random comments on blogs don't count, any more than it'd be fair for me to dig up the loons who comment on LGF and hold them out as proof that conservatives are all racist neo-nazis.
In my experience it is typically the conservative who says that humanity is doomed, or evil. Usually this is said in sneering reference to "liberal idealism" and the "foolish liberal belief that people are basically good". The hard right Christianity of the USA emphasizes with mind numbing frequency the bits of the Bible which say that people are so awful that God can't even stomach the sight of us except for the intervention of Jesus. They say, explicitly and often, that people are essentially evil and must be forced to do good by threat of punishment both in this life and the afterlife.
I see no doom and gloom from liberalism as a whole. Despite attempts by those who refuse to accept the consensus of most climatologists, the prime focus of liberals re: global warming is on what we can do to prevent catastrophe. I see no prominent liberals wallowing in nightmare scenarios. While we do *discuss* such things it is only to underline the importance of making what changes we can now, not to claim that the world is doomed and that humans are inherently vile. While the Ann Coulters, the Rush Limbaughs, the Michael Savages, chose to see any discussion of bad options as doom and gloom talk, thats BS and you know it.
I once made my living repairing computers. When I told a customer that their CPU fan was bad and that if they didn't replace it their processor would overheat and fail I wasn't trying to spread doom, I wasn't being depressing, I was telling him why he needed to spend $20. The same applies to discussions of global warming, it isn't wallowing in the miserable failures of humanity, its pointing out why we need to spend billions (hell, maybe trillions) of dollars to fix a problem.
As for the predictable, and pathetic, attempt to link modern liberalism with communism, I can only suggest that you pull your head out of the 1960's. The world has moved on, its time you did as well. While there is a fringe of die hard communists left I will suggest that they are to liberalism what the KKK is to conservatism. They're loud, they're embarrassing, and most liberals wish they'd just shut up because they give conservatives an opportunity to try to associate us with them. Communism is no more an aspect of modern liberalism than racism is an aspect of modern conservatism.
From my point of view it is conservatives who believe the worst about humanity. They say "if we don't outlaw gay sex everyone will turn gay and the species will go extinct!" They say "if we don't outlaw pornography we'll become a nation of degenerates!" They say "if we teach our children about sex they'll rut like animals!" They say "if we don't keep these books away from our children they will poison their minds and civilization will collapse!"
Or look at the rehtoric coming from the Bush administration: "You must be afraid! If you aren't afraid enough the big bad Islamofacists will get you! The terror alert level just rose another color! BOO!!!!"
As I said earlier, I'm not a believer in the notion that people are inherently good; there's too much evil in the world to believe that. Neither am I a believer in the idea that people are inherently evil; there's too much good in the world to belive that. People are just people, some are good, some are evil, and I think the vast majority just want to get along, do their jobs, and have some nice things.
I'll leave you with a simple observation: historically conservatives have been wrong about absolutely everything except communism. Around 1776 conservatives said "a nation has to have a king, the king is appointed by God, go against the king and civilization will crumble!" (see the doom and gloom?) Liberals thought it was a bunch of BS and they were right. Later on conservatives said "Slavery is necessary, blacks aren't really human anyway, if we stop keeping slaves civilization will crumble!" Liberals disagreed and, what do you know, civilization didn't crumble. Not long after that conservatives said "women can't have rights, its unnatural, God doesn't like it, give women rights and civilization will crumble!" Who, exactly, is it who's doom and gloom here?
posted by sotonohito at 6:07 PM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
should have previewed more.... Nightchrome is either a conservative, or a fringe type. Sheesh man what do you want to go and make my rant look bad for?
posted by sotonohito at 6:08 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by sotonohito at 6:08 PM on August 22, 2006
Sorry for the double, now triple post. That sucks too.
posted by chance at 6:39 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by chance at 6:39 PM on August 22, 2006
I'm not a conservative I just think that, on the whole, people suck.
posted by nightchrome at 6:53 PM on August 22, 2006
posted by nightchrome at 6:53 PM on August 22, 2006
Essentially, to view an ecological footprint as being automatically a negative thing equates to a lack of confidence in human capacity.
The idea of planting trees, etc, is usually one of "reducing one's footprint" for a reason -- our net output is usually environmentally negative. Show me positive net output and you'll probably be showing me some kind of sparse agrarian society.
As for negative attitude, am I the only one who remembers 80's corporate-speak as including the gem that "X river is underpolluted? Spoiling the environment is what we do. And, according to some belief systems, our God-given right. I also dislike the Gaia-nitwits, but look at what they're reacting against.
posted by dreamsign at 8:38 PM on August 22, 2006
The idea of planting trees, etc, is usually one of "reducing one's footprint" for a reason -- our net output is usually environmentally negative. Show me positive net output and you'll probably be showing me some kind of sparse agrarian society.
As for negative attitude, am I the only one who remembers 80's corporate-speak as including the gem that "X river is underpolluted? Spoiling the environment is what we do. And, according to some belief systems, our God-given right. I also dislike the Gaia-nitwits, but look at what they're reacting against.
posted by dreamsign at 8:38 PM on August 22, 2006
am I the only one who remembers 80's corporate-speak as including the gem that "X river is underpolluted?
No help here.
posted by longsleeves at 11:01 PM on August 22, 2006
No help here.
posted by longsleeves at 11:01 PM on August 22, 2006
I'm not generally misanthropic. I think more and more people are realizing that ... that ... hmm ...
...
When's the next season of American Idol start, anyway?
posted by empyrean at 12:51 AM on August 23, 2006
...
When's the next season of American Idol start, anyway?
posted by empyrean at 12:51 AM on August 23, 2006
« Older 10,000 Reasons Can't Be Wrong | Not just a crappy Cranberries song anymore Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:07 PM on August 22, 2006