Why do lefties take humans out of the nature equation?

Question

Libs are always saying humans are destroying nature and that we should protect nature. Since when did humans take a leap outside of nature? If you believe in survival of the fittest or in darwinian principles then shouldn't species that were suppose to survive be able to survive with humans. Humans are part of nature. People say that without humans the earth could continue, well without bears the earth would continue just fine too, so what? Isn't the earth suppose to change and adapt with our presence since we are just as much a part of nature as any other animal or as a volcano erupting or an earthquake occuring? You can't have it both ways. You can't believe in the concepts of survival of the fittest and then turn around and say that humans have no right to change the landscape around them.

This is what some of you still don't get. Let's say we continue to throw trash out and pollute the air and destroy the forest, how is that any unnatural an occurance then a volcano destroying half a state or a swarm of locusts destroying all the plants and killing out a bunch of animals. Wouldn't our actions be a part of nature, that destruction you claim is unnatural. How is anything humans do unnatural if we are part of nature?

Answer 1

If we are apart of nature, then we also have the need to respect it. i.e not littering, not wasting natural materials, like we are currently doing. Oh, and if we are apart of nature, that doesn't mean we have the right to completely obliterate it, because if we did have that right, that would mean we were a higher power than nature. Now, I'm not trying to bring religion into this or anything, because im an atheist, but, if a higher power put us on this earth, they didn't put us on this earth to destroy it.

Listen, if we don't do something now, civilazation as we know it will no longer exists because of our neglience. Global warming is taking a toll on our earth's resources and what it provides for us. If we sit here & neglect it, we will no longer have natural resources that we have used to survive for centuries.

peace&love
t-par&ally

Answer 2

Y'know, I've been asking this question since I was old enough to form a coherent question. How is something a human makes 'unnatural?' Are we made of anti-matter or something, did we come from an alternate universe with different physical laws? Don't we live and breath and reproduce and die like any other mammal?

Now, the truth is, as the only animals able to use technology more complex than a rock or cactus thorn, human beings do have the potential to change thier environment much more quickly and radically than any other existing species.

But, I think the environmentalist view isn't that pragmatic, it seems to me to have taken on a religious aspect. It's an article of Faith that human beings are innately destructive to the sacred Environment: any change humans make to the environment is innately wrong, it's environmental damage. It doesn't matter if the change seems positive in some way - like a dam making a river valley and a desert plain into a lake and arrable farm land - any human-initiated alteration of the pristine environment is bad.

The only humans that can be tollerated in this view are those who live in traditional socieities - cultures whose use of technology hasn't changed in so long that the environment around them has adapted and found an equilibrium with thier activities - as the environmentalists put it, they "live in harmony with nature."

That's what the green religion strives for: a way for human beings to exist in harmony with nature. Many have a vision of a scientifically sophisticated humanity able to manage high standards of living without altering the environment around them apreciably. We're a very long way from that vision, if it's even possible (I think the laws of thermodynamics may get in the way).

Absent Star Trek technology, there's the very real question of how to reconcile a respect for nature that demands human beings live in subsistence-level traditional socieities, with a world capable of supporting only a few tens of millions of people engaging in such lifestyles.

Answer 3

Humans are a part of nature and when one part of nature destroys the rest of nature it must be stopped if it can. The only creature on earth that has the power and intellegence to do so is the highest of animals, human animals. Just as that human animal is able to develop ways to clean up the ecosystem he has also devised ways, sometimes indavertently, of destroying it. If the human expects to have his spicis to exist much longer and those animals and plants he depends on to sustain his life he needs to take good care of his planet. God gave humans dominion over the earth. Humans have a will and can use that will for good or evil. Humans also make mistakes but learning from mistakes can improve. If human kind has made a mistake in things he is done to harm his environment than he needs to learn from those mistakes and correct them. Correct them before the problem associated with his mistake goes far enough to kill him and the plants and animals he depends upon for life.

Volcanos erupt and we cannot do anything about that. Whether they spew a lot of pollutants or very little. We can do something about the pollutants we create whether a little or alot. Scientists have proven that only a one degree difference in ocean temperature can make a major impact on the climate of the planet. If the oceans warm up because of the effects of what humans put into our environment than we are the cause of this climate change.

Answer 4

I'm a "lefty" and I always include human beings in the concept of nature. However, the line between organic versus unorganic in society today does exist. You aren't exactly out in the wilderness, not using any modern technology, hunting and gathering and living completly naturally, now are you? Unless you are out, only interacitng with nature and what is naturally on this planet, than you aren't fully part of nature.

Nature has always existed due to perfect balance, and the actions of animals, natural disasters, and the such, don't seem to disturb the balance. But what we are causing doesn't happening naturally, so we need to make sure that we don't throw off the balance and destroy the world. We want to protect the world, cause we want to selfishly keep out lives going, it is in human and animal nature. Its just that we are doing a lot more that is putting our own existance in danger as well as the existance of other organisms in nature.

Answer 5

Survival of the fittest is the name of the game however, when you throw unnatural equations in the mix the whole system is upset. Survival of the fittest is a process that spans long periods and we are speeding it up.

May I suggest reading up on this a little more.

Answer 6

Unlike a volcano we have a choice to help maintain a clean and biologically diverse environment or not. Why would we not encourage a healthy environment?

You try to convey that pollution is an evolutionary problem.
It isn't.
It takes species countless years to adapt and change.
Why should your will to continue spreading pollution outweigh others wishes to live in world with rhinos, flamingos, and other creatures?
You sound terribly selfish.

Answer 7

Because, obviously, we are the most dominate animal on Earth.

And if we don't try to protect the enviornment now, then we will die out becuase of it, later.

And what is wrong with not harming other things?

Answer 8

It's not all lefties that think that way, just the extremists.

Some of the real whackjobs look at humanity like it is a harmful virus.

Answer 9

yea...we can be a part of nature without destroying it... companies could use safer more enviromentally friendly products... but they don't ..... we actually need to put some effort into caring for our planet

Answer 10

Still waiting on an answer to that "ideal" global temerature. I think the libs are getting owned on global warming today.