Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

"Family oriented environmentalists" once again

Posted by cfdavep 
"Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
There is an environmental place near where we live and my dh and I volunteer when we can. Anyway there was a pretty cool guy who worked there who had to leave due to cut backs. The guy had one kid and before he left he admitted to me that overpopulation is a big part of environmental problems and that the world will probablly start to become unliveable in 30-50 years and then he said he didn't give much of a crap because he would be dead by then as he is in his late 40's. I did not dare say "what about your daughter?" He also admitted they wanted three kids, but decided to stop at one, not due to too many people but his wife's family genes carry a LOT of mental illness

Anyway they hired a new person part time, a woman with two daughters. She has a biology degree concentrating in water quality and is REALLY into nature activites, except less now due to kids and the time they take up. Anyway she complains alot about housing developments happening and how awful that is, and of course I said to myself that the human popluation keeps increasing and that is creating a need for more habitat to be sucked up for the latest middle class developments where people like her can raise even more kids. If someone ever alluded to that there they would be tarred, feathered and sent running for their lives through the forests that are left.

I think people like that think that most of the population should be forced into cities with housing on top of housing for everyone else and THEY can build their home where THEY can have access to nature for themselves and their sprogs. She did mention that she wanted to have a "cabin in the woods" for herself, hubby and sprogs for summers far away from developments.
That enironmental guy with the daughter seems to be common in his attitude of screw everyone else I'll be dead, I will do what I want when I am here and his kid can fix it or something.
Environmental guy is a MAJOR advocate for "cycling to work" cause he is into racing bikes himself and bought a Prius and told me it was "for the image" due to his job" Ugh
A CF enviromentalist would be considered one step away from setting fire to the SUV car lot at 3am. God Almighty
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
there are some tables and figures out there. since they like to spout carbon footprints, keep in mind by being childfree we save about 9000 tons of impact.
by comparison, the moo cows, no matter how conserving they are, will, at best, achieve around 3000 tons savings.
so there placenta brains. inherent moo insanity

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children
and I defy anyone to prove me wrong:

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

If I want to hear the pitter-patter of little feet I'll put shoes on my pets.

Mankind and its needs (wants) are like unto a black hole. It devours all available resources and it never is full: it merely grows larger and demands more.

Definition of 'wealthy': Anyone who makes more/has more than you do.

Someone pointed out that I'm a realist. And all along I thought I was just a pessimist crossed with a cynic.

Entitlement, thy name is mooooooooooooooo

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.
Add to this that, many of those who refuse or are unable to prove they are
citizens, will receive free insurance paid for by those who are.""

I am confused enough already. I do not need outside help.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
The racing bike guy, they got rid of because he was full time and they wanted to save $$$ to redirect it so got rid of him and got a part timer instead halving the hours. So they got a moo whose actual hours are from the time her kids make it to school on the bus and she leaves before the bus drops them off, plus all their vacation days are her holidays and all summer off, and she got this after a Master's degree.

Hubby is the bill payer here and she has an extra $$$ something to do job
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
Quote
cfdavep
he said he didn't give much of a crap because he would be dead by then as he is in his late 40's.

Wow, Thanks, Dad. Why is he even in that field?

You clearly have a lot more restraint than I. I don't think I could keep my mouth shut. I'd wind up losing my job over their stupidity and hypocrisy.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
Quote
cfdavep
That enironmental guy with the daughter seems to be common in his attitude of screw everyone else I'll be dead, I will do what I want when I am here and his kid can fix it or something.
Environmental guy is a MAJOR advocate for "cycling to work" cause he is into racing bikes himself and bought a Prius and told me it was "for the image" due to his job" Ugh
A CF enviromentalist would be considered one step away from setting fire to the SUV car lot at 3am. God Almighty



So much of what these people think, believe, and hold dear as their core values is rooted in complete fucking nonsense.

Much of what passes for today's environmental movement revolves around the subject of climate change. What these numbskulls refuse to acknowledge is that climate change is not the problem. Climate change is a symptom of overpopulation. The more humans on the planet, the more fossil fuels are burned, the more CO2 is released. It's that simple. Fewer humans would mean less burning.

NO AMOUNT of cycling to work, driving a Prius, or putting solar panels on rooftops will change this equation. "Alternative" energies CANNOT run even a fraction of what we are currently running now.

So what does this mean? Well, IF climate change is real, and IF it is caused by humans, and IF the results will be as catastrophic as some predict, then we have TWO options...

1. Reduce human population to a realistic and sustainable level.

2. Return to a pre-fossil fuel lifestyle, circa 1835.

And here's the kick in the dick, folks... NEITHER of these options are going to happen. There's not going to be draconian population controls, and we're not turning back the clock to the good ol' days, which weren't so good anyway.

So the next time a parent or any "environmentalist" starts bitching about environmentalism/pollution/global warming, tell them that you'll get entirely on board with their message on one condition: They must dramatically reduce or eliminate the amenities that make modern life so much better. I'm talking about dramatic reductions in consumer consumption, dramatic reduction in caloric intake, food rationing, medical rationing, antibiotic rationing, deep reductions in electricity and water usage, etc. etc. I could go on for paragraphs.

Believe me, I'm guilty as anyone when it comes to living a First World lifestyle, But at least I can admit it. These morons actually believe that they can consume the way they do, reproduce even more consumers, but make up for it by recycling a few aluminum cans and driving a hybrid car. It's naive at best and idiotic at worst.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
Not to mention environmentally friendly technologies are prohibitively expensive, lesser in quality and availability than polluting mass manufactured tech. Case in point where I live, the state electricity grid is primarily generated by renewable energy technology. We're slugged nearly 50c per Kilowatt/Hour, supply is rationed during summer heatwaves, and blackouts are a regular occurrence. Solar/battery backup is prohibitively expensive, requires storage space and renters don't have a choice with it.

As CfDave mentioned, they're hypocrites. If they wanted to make negligible impact on the environment, then they should live like a childless third-worlder, in the middle of nowhere. However, I can't see them giving up their modern amenities to do it.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 21, 2017
One thing I hate is the attitude many people seem to have towards nature. When they see a wide open natural space they think "There's nothing here, let's put something here". It absolutely does not occur to them nature IS something.

It is always depressing to see more of the desert vegetation (Tucson, Arizona) being ripped up for yet another housing development or shopping center. This is necessary because of increasing population, but the attitude towards nature I mentioned sure the hell does not make it any better.

Whenever I can I go to the park to see the grass, trees, rose garden and duck pond. I enjoy having modern conveniences and prefer nature in small doses. The idea of camping has never appealed to me. So spending an afternoon in the park is the perfect balance. The newer parks closer to where live are all about sports fields for the kids. It does not occur to the developers that anyone might just like natural settings that don't have a particular purpose.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 22, 2017
Quote
nokidsandhappy

As CfDave mentioned, they're hypocrites. If they wanted to make negligible impact on the environment, then they should live like a childless third-worlder, in the middle of nowhere. However, I can't see them giving up their modern amenities to do it.


Turd World nations stand to be hit hard by climate change if in fact the most dire predictions come to fruition.

That being said, I have serious doubts that even among the most ardent "environmentalists," any of them would be willing to undergo even MINOR changes to their current lifestyle.

If given the choice between having a smartphone -or- hundreds of thousands of unnamed masses of people dying in climate-change-related flooding or famine, most "environmentalists" would choose their smartphone. I guarantee it.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 22, 2017
Quote
ondinette
It is always depressing to see more of the desert vegetation (Tucson, Arizona) being ripped up for yet another housing development or shopping center. This is necessary because of increasing population, but the attitude towards nature I mentioned sure the hell does not make it any better.

Native Tucsonan here. "The desert" as we know it today didn't really exist until they (first the Spanish, then the Anglos) ran cattle and sheep on the natural grassland that used to be here. That allowed the mesquite and other arid-land plants to take over from the grass. The Santa Cruz river ran above ground until about 1939, when the water table dropped from its initial 20 feet to, ultimately, below 200 feet due to overuse.

In short, the Sonoran Desert that we know today is not "natural" for this place, any more than the developments are. It's entirely a result of overuse - overpopulation - affecting land and water. Tucson used to have Riparian zones. No more since the water table dropped.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 22, 2017
Skyeyes,

I realize deserts are not entirely natural. But I think the open desert is a lot better than yet another suburban housing development that looks just like the other 587 already built. And there are wild animals that are displaced and ultimately die from development. Gila monsters and javelina are more attractive and have better dispositions than the average breeder. grinning smiley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gila_monster

http://www.arizona-leisure.com/javelinas.html

I'm sure this is not unique to Tucson or Arizona, but I am really bothered by the developers' attitude of "Oooh, empty space! Let's build something on it!" Nothing is sacred to them except the money they get from building shit. All the people breeding like fucking bunny rabbits are not encouraging them to change their attitude, and there are plenty of breeders around here.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 23, 2017
Quote
cfdavep

I think people like that think that most of the population should be forced into cities with housing on top of housing for everyone else and THEY can build their home where THEY can have access to nature for themselves and their sprogs. She did mention that she wanted to have a "cabin in the woods" for herself, hubby and sprogs for summers far away from developments

Mr Yummy and I just bought a house with 3 bedrooms. Most of our friends are happy for us but one breeder HAD to say "why are you buying a three bedroom place? That house could have gone to a FAMBLEE that NEEDS them, you could make do with one or two. Childless couples shouldn't be buying big houses unless they plan to have kids"

No, asshole, we don't NEED three bedrooms but the fact that people like you are butthurt over it just makes me want to wave it in your face. See, when you don't have sprogs you can get a house you actually like, not one that's close to good schools and will get ruined by sticky fingers and drawing on walls and filled with plastic crap.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 24, 2017
Quote
yummynotmummy
Mr Yummy and I just bought a house with 3 bedrooms. Most of our friends are happy for us but one breeder HAD to say "why are you buying a three bedroom place? That house could have gone to a FAMBLEE that NEEDS them, you could make do with one or two. Childless couples shouldn't be buying big houses unless they plan to have kids"

No, asshole, we don't NEED three bedrooms but the fact that people like you are butthurt over it just makes me want to wave it in your face. See, when you don't have sprogs you can get a house you actually like, not one that's close to good schools and will get ruined by sticky fingers and drawing on walls and filled with plastic crap.

Not to mention the fact that homes with fewer than 3 bedrooms and 2 baths don't appreciate as well and don't sell readily. Even if you plan to live in a particular house for the rest of your life, you should always take its resale potential into account because you don't know what the future will bring. It just makes good fiscal sense to buy the most house you can afford because in 40 or 50 years, when you're ready for a nursing home/assisted living facility, the equity in your house is going to be the major thing that pays for it. How nice and popular a house is can be the difference between living at the Bella Vita complex, with it's 3 pools and 7 chefs, and Shady Pines.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 24, 2017
There is nothing that pisses me off more than these people. Seriously, i had really nasty judgmental encounters with them and they act like they are the holiest ones because recycling, using LEDs, electric cars or washable diapers. So, they have 2-3-4 kids but they bark at me because i use tampons (smallest menstrual cup is still too big for megrinning smiley), BC pills (i didn't choose to have endometriosis and it's not my fault there isn't another way to manage it) or condoms (saying 'wtf').

Recently i was attacked because i'm planning to buy a car (gas one) as most of the full-time jobs require one and besides they are set in the middle of nowhere or you just need to travel from one working premise to another. Behold if i travel by plane once a year, they are ready to chop my head off. I can buy 4 cars and a private jet and still not have the same carbon footprint as they do.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 24, 2017
Quote
ondinette


I'm sure this is not unique to Tucson or Arizona, but I am really bothered by the developers' attitude of "Oooh, empty space! Let's build something on it!" Nothing is sacred to them except the money they get from building shit. All the people breeding like fucking bunny rabbits are not encouraging them to change their attitude, and there are plenty of breeders around here.
This is pretty bad on the East Coast. Rarely does a tract of open land remain that way without some developer wanting to build crap on it. Even in my town where there was two big fields that had been Superfund sites (an old factory dumped chemicals into the fields for years) a developer bought them and plunked condos on them.

And this town in due for more development later, likely onto more open land. sad smiley

I'd asked people what they thought about this, all they can think of 'Oh, the housing values will go up!' They aren't thinking about overcrowding, they aren't thinking of the taxes that will inevitably come from more people using the roads and needing public services, it's just the housing values.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 24, 2017
Quote
yummynotmummy


Mr Yummy and I just bought a house with 3 bedrooms. Most of our friends are happy for us but one breeder HAD to say "why are you buying a three bedroom place? That house could have gone to a FAMBLEE that NEEDS them, you could make do with one or two. Childless couples shouldn't be buying big houses unless they plan to have kids"

No, asshole, we don't NEED three bedrooms but the fact that people like you are butthurt over it just makes me want to wave it in your face. See, when you don't have sprogs you can get a house you actually like, not one that's close to good schools and will get ruined by sticky fingers and drawing on walls and filled with plastic crap.

And hey we can afford it because we don't have to have the monster SUV, the Disney trips, the high dollar play set and trampoline, the must have this year toy, the designer label clothes that all the cool kids have, the keep trying till we get the correct chromosome pattern ...

Our houses are not ATMs for all the keeping up with the jone's stuff.

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 24, 2017
Quote
StudioFiftyFour

So much of what these people think, believe, and hold dear as their core values is rooted in complete fucking nonsense.

Much of what passes for today's environmental movement revolves around the subject of climate change. What these numbskulls refuse to acknowledge is that climate change is not the problem. Climate change is a symptom of overpopulation. The more humans on the planet, the more fossil fuels are burned, the more CO2 is released. It's that simple. Fewer humans would mean less burning.

.
Don't forget less cutting down habitat, less species extinction because less humans spreading and outcrowding the local animals, less poaching animals for money, less need for big farms to feed huge families that tend to draw stressed and hungry wildlife that will be killed for 'trespassing,' and less temptation to eat all of the remaining wildlife when the regional human population outgrows it's local food supply. *

*This is the other environmental elephant in the room. This happens a lot in the third world, and even as they don't pollute as much they will gut their own environmental life support system if it means feeding their growing family today. We can reduce pollution and reduce numbers in first world nations all we want, but unless the continuatial slaughter of animals and habitats is stopped too, we are still fucked, because the animals and trees are needed to help regulate the environment.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 24, 2017
Quote
nightfire

Don't forget less cutting down habitat, less species extinction because less humans spreading and outcrowding the local animals, less poaching animals for money, less need for big farms to feed huge families that tend to draw stressed and hungry wildlife that will be killed for 'trespassing,' and less temptation to eat all of the remaining wildlife when the regional human population outgrows it's local food supply. *

*This is the other environmental elephant in the room. This happens a lot in the third world, and even as they don't pollute as much they will gut their own environmental life support system if it means feeding their growing family today. We can reduce pollution and reduce numbers in first world nations all we want, but unless the continuatial slaughter of animals and habitats is stopped too, we are still fucked, because the animals and trees are needed to help regulate the environment.



I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

Consequently, I know people who have multiple children who truly believe that their recycling of aluminum cans and driving of hybrid cars will easily mitigate their carbon footprint. And yet at the same time I have to travel for work, usually three times per year, and these people have reminded me of my "unnecessary" carbon footprint on more than one occasion. openmouthed shock

Some food for thought: Every piece of plastic that was ever manufactured in the history of mankind, still exists today. This is a massive problem for our solid waste landfills and oceans. What are children's items made of, almost exclusively?
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 25, 2017
Quote
StudioFiftyFour



Some food for thought: Every piece of plastic that was ever manufactured in the history of mankind, still exists today. This is a massive problem for our solid waste landfills and oceans. What are children's items made of, almost exclusively?
Don't forget the plastic poop filled diapers, too. I bet a decent percentage of landfill waste is human waste wrapped in plastic covered in cutesy cartoon animals.

Ugh, and plastic toys. These tend to keep several franchises I know and love kiddified, because all of the new movies made and cartoons ever exist for now is to sell these crappy toys from China. Toys that some fans (and certainly the producers opine is 'necessary' to keep the franchise going, even though good movies, cartoons that are actually good and well written, and fan nostalgia will keep it going far longer.

I hate plastic. Little plastic particles are everywhere in the ocean, animals eat it and starve to death because they can't pass it, and companies dump the responsibility onto the consumer instead of developing effective 'end of life' strategies to recover materials once the item in question has outlived it's usefulness.

One thing I do know about humans, is that they will eagerly railroad themselves into hell if going the opposite way is less convenient, more expensive, and requires some degree of self-restraint.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 27, 2017
Quote
StudioFiftyFour
Quote
cfdavep
That enironmental guy with the daughter seems to be common in his attitude of screw everyone else I'll be dead, I will do what I want when I am here and his kid can fix it or something.
Environmental guy is a MAJOR advocate for "cycling to work" cause he is into racing bikes himself and bought a Prius and told me it was "for the image" due to his job" Ugh
A CF enviromentalist would be considered one step away from setting fire to the SUV car lot at 3am. God Almighty



So much of what these people think, believe, and hold dear as their core values is rooted in complete fucking nonsense.

Much of what passes for today's environmental movement revolves around the subject of climate change. What these numbskulls refuse to acknowledge is that climate change is not the problem. Climate change is a symptom of overpopulation. The more humans on the planet, the more fossil fuels are burned, the more CO2 is released. It's that simple. Fewer humans would mean less burning.

NO AMOUNT of cycling to work, driving a Prius, or putting solar panels on rooftops will change this equation. "Alternative" energies CANNOT run even a fraction of what we are currently running now.

So what does this mean? Well, IF climate change is real, and IF it is caused by humans, and IF the results will be as catastrophic as some predict, then we have TWO options...

1. Reduce human population to a realistic and sustainable level.

2. Return to a pre-fossil fuel lifestyle, circa 1835.

And here's the kick in the dick, folks... NEITHER of these options are going to happen. There's not going to be draconian population controls, and we're not turning back the clock to the good ol' days, which weren't so good anyway.

So the next time a parent or any "environmentalist" starts bitching about environmentalism/pollution/global warming, tell them that you'll get entirely on board with their message on one condition: They must dramatically reduce or eliminate the amenities that make modern life so much better. I'm talking about dramatic reductions in consumer consumption, dramatic reduction in caloric intake, food rationing, medical rationing, antibiotic rationing, deep reductions in electricity and water usage, etc. etc. I could go on for paragraphs.

Believe me, I'm guilty as anyone when it comes to living a First World lifestyle, But at least I can admit it. These morons actually believe that they can consume the way they do, reproduce even more consumers, but make up for it by recycling a few aluminum cans and driving a hybrid car. It's naive at best and idiotic at worst.

Very well put. If they would admit they are not environmentalists and having kids isn't good for the environment but they want to attempt clean living then I could respect their right to make a decision. But most of the time they act smug and possess no self-awareness that they aren't environmentalists and act like owning a Prius, being a vegan, etc. somehow negates the impact having kids makes to the environment.

I surely won't claim to be an environmentalist but the fact is not having kids is one of the best things one can do for the environment.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
September 29, 2017
I'm no environmentalist either, but I feel that I am a better environmentalist than these stupid families because I don't drive (at least yet), I recycle, and I don't have brats! Brats are the WORST thing anyone can do for the planet, and if these hypocrites want to talk about their carbon footprints with me, I can certainly tell them a little something about mine.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
October 09, 2017
For the malls and big stores why not build up instead of out and cut the zoning way down for commercial businesses? Same with the huge parking lots to hold all the consumers.

I'm betting out is cheaper but I'd rather see one ugly skyscraper than the ugly sprawl which chews up raw land and spits it out. After 10-20 years these huge malls and big stores are ugly and outdated rather than new and ugly. And in certain parts of the country the same ones are in towns minutes apart. Talk about ugly.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
October 10, 2017
As much as I'd like to think we can fix this situation, I think we're too far gone. If we were to have any hope of saving the environment, our economic system needs to die, consumption-based capitalism needs to die. Our economic system is based on the idea of consumption and consuming more and more things. Also involved with this is having an ever-expanding population so that they can become consumers.


Less consumption by the developed world coupled with less breeding in third world and developing world countries is what's needed but I'm not confident that it'll happen willingly.

While recycling is a good thing, in the grand scheme of things it'll amount to little more than rearranging the deck chairs aboard the Titanic as it's sinking.
Re: "Family oriented environmentalists" once again
October 10, 2017
I saw an open letter to a shop where a woman was complaining about their delivery service using plastic bags, even when she requested no bags, and double-wrapping several things. Okay, I agree, I opt for reusable bags myself, but what was the reason she was using the ordering service? A newborn.

Somehow it never occurs to her or the people sharing it that that baby is a far bigger problem than some double-wrapped bananas.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login