Could any one help steer me to some information packed web-sites on protecting the earth from big companies and renegade outdoorsmen/recreationalists? The topic on the Artic region is great, I was hoping that others out there, were aware of some specific sites dedicated to saving the Earth.
Posted by . (Member # 20) on :
I just visited that site and I couldn't agree more with the cause. We get rid of cars, guns, electricity and plumit ourselves to the dark ages and stop breeding. I like it.
Posted by RockLobster (Member # 45) on :
We could start with "stop breeding" or at least governmental control of breeding. Fuck this "the more kids i have the more money I get from the taxes that people who can actualy support themselves" bullshit. I say put a contraceptive in the water and force people to apply for the antidote. Everyone has the right to breed but living of otherpeoples money and having babies to get more money is just plain infringing on other peoples rights.
Learn to live on your own support or do "the oposite".
Posted by RockLobster (Member # 45) on :
One interesting thought i had about VHEMT is that by the darwinian theory of evolution this movement will be chosen for extinction by the very thing that it stands for. Therefore unfortunatly natural selection seems to favor the trait which produces irresponsible reproduction.
Posted by Jomamason (Member # 14) on :
Not to be a stickler for detail here Chadwick, but I have a beef about misinformation when it comes to these things. Darwin's theory is not evolution, its natural selection. Natural selection is the MECHANISM by which evoulution occures. Evolution was relatively substantiated and accepted as fact before Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection. There were just several other theories at the time that were more acceptable to acadamia at large than Darwin's was. And his theories weren't validated until well into the 1900's when a lot of research was done in genetics and it just happened that the nature of DNA and how it appears to work supports Darwins theory. Not a criticism of your comments here, but like I said I have even a bigger beef with people being misinformed than not informed at all (if you dont care you dont, no biggie) Jomama
The VHEMT people are f*&#ing nuts, thats my two cents.
Posted by RockLobster (Member # 45) on :
Very good regurgitation of a textbook or some other reading but actually studing his his theory and the mechanisims by which it works you would know that both terms go hand in hand and that, yes one is a mechanism of the other but you could arguee that natural selection is a product of evolution as well. Also natural selection is not the only means of evolution but it is the most statistically and scientificaly supportable. If you did understand my post it is a quick and simple example of darwins theory and its results.
Posted by Jomamason (Member # 14) on :
Like I said it wasnt a criticizm, it was a clarification. TEXTBOOK RENDERING, what the fuck does that mean, how do you obtain information, divine intervention, osmosis? It happend to be off the cuff, an I havent used text-books for years now (my guess is I've spent a lot more time reading and studing his work than you). My only comment to your original post was, Darwin did not devise the "Theory of Evolution" (there is no such thing). Unless you can show evidence of spontanous generation, evolution is a fact not a theory, as much as gravity, boiles law, or the law of thermodynamics. Yeah you can use the terms interchangably, or you could choose to be accurate, your words. Like I said I didn't mean nothing, just a stickler for details. Jomama
Posted by RockLobster (Member # 45) on :
This argument is so gay it makes me want to throw-up, my point was that i did know what i was talking about if you have studied it in a university setting it is accepted as "Darwins Theory on Evolution" but specificaly stated it is his "Theory of Natural Selection" The point is the terms can be interchanged and are understood by thoes who know about it and have taken coursework or labwork in it. I am deffinetly not a nit picky person or i could say that the term "osmosis" is not the correct term for transfer of something to a less concintrated vessel the appropriate term would be "diffusion". "Osmosis" is incorrectly used in that case. Point being i still understood what you were saying and osmosis is comonly used in that case even though it may not be exactly the correct term.
Posted by Cramer (Member # 5) on :
deep thoughts,,,, by big head.
nope. none here... look somewhere else.
Posted by EricCartman TheGodOfAllLivingThings (Member # 5) on :
Hey " posting fraud "...do you think that you could get us some new, information-packed sites to check out the latest on saving the earth?