I would blame it on profit not religion. Religion is one of the tools.

@MsAl I think expecting to be saved at the end times and thinking that God gave mankind the planet to use as he wants definitely supports the ruin of the planet.

Them and all the docile, non-thinking proletariat masses who consume that oil and release greenhouse gasses by driving their cars, buying cheap plastic products, running their electric appliances, heating their homes, and buying things they don't need with money they don't have.

@Happy_Killbot I'm sure most if us would drive electric cars if they were affordable as for the rest can't disagree with you .

@Simon1 If the price of electric cars goes down, I assume most of us will switch to electric vehicles, because they can run on whichever type of fuel has been converted into electricity instead of one type of fuel, therefore they should be overall cheaper to run. Through the electrical grid, an electric vehicle can run on solar, gas, diesel, nuclear, or hydroelectric. Just running on electric however doesn't eliminate reliance on fossil fuels without massive overhauls in our electrical infrastructure, and I think in practice what would happen is more oil burning power plants would be constructed to make up for increasing electrical prices.

Electric cars are hardly the solution.

@Piratefish it may not be a solution but with nuclear power its better than what we have

@Simon1 I've read a few things here and there tat seem to suggest our current state of technology with electric cars may actually be more harmful to the environment because of some of the materials used in manufacturing them, added to the increase fossil fuel emissions from power plants. Maybe someday, but it seems like there may not be that much benefit to electric cars just yet, other than reducing the demand for oil.

@Piratefish ,There is no one solution. There are many parts to a massive puzzle that could solve this crisis.

Yes I think I was wrong to tie the two in the same question. Religion is used to do bad stuff. For the most part I think profit is the motivation.

Inequalities and human emotions exist without religion.

@Krowmagnum, @MsAl I agree with you both, but the justification of said bigotry is often religious. That is not to say without religion there'd be no other way to justify hatred.

@MsAl the USA equation certainly boils down to greed... electric cars do not pollute and could have been used to commute 120 years ago but greed pushed polluter cars to go everywhere cutting back on mass transit....greed to cheat workers out of living wages so shit can be sold cheap @ WalMart.....science was declassified 30 years ago because polar ice depth was so shallow there was no point in hiding where our nuke subs would surface to to nuke Soviets....and 30 years ago General Motors made a few dozen hydrogen cars but cancelled all of them and the California electrics for greedy dividends in Texaco.....think how many lives would be saved if half the cars on the road today were hydrogen and electric polluting zero poison into the air water and soil ? Only poor people would be driving 30 year old cars..... and zero nukes would be giving us cancer if solar was on every roof parking lot and wind power running 24/7 atop rising vent heat pipes ....General Electric would not be filthy rich bribing corrupt politicians when every home and mom/pop shop makes money selling power to people in the shade or recharging their cars on the go

The United States is at the forefront of the destruction? At certain times, yes. I'd have to agree. But China surely leads that now and historically Britain led that charge in Europe and many parts of the world. Let's not choose a villain to avoid facing our own evil.
Also, the US might lead Christian countries now but not even in the top 10 for religious zealotry. Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and every North African country are all much more zealous than the US has ever been, even in Puritan days.

@CK-One Certainly the UK started the industrial revolution and China is the biggest polluter but he US is second and is slow to move to renewables and the current administration is championing fossil fuels including coal.

The UK has reached 40% renewable electricity generation recently, the US is still about 6%

I meant the US is the at the forefront of destruction in the Western world, both with it's aggressive foreign policy and the exploitative lifestyle at home.

You are correct I shouldn't have compared the two, but it's how I posed it. I'm not sure if it is possible to put the damage back on the box with the damage we continue to do. Profit is a strong motivator and the people making money from progess use their power to prevent any sort of regulation.

@MsAl I don’t think the genie can be put back in the bottle, but time is fast running out for even damage limitation, never mind reversal. We must try...we owe that to our children and grandchildren. My generation has seen the biggest changes from the end of WW2 when I was born, until the present day, the technological advances have been astounding, but at a terrible price for the future of mankind and the planet....we must try our utmost to prevent complete destruction. Religion is not our friend in this end, I’m afraid, I was neutral about it, until the religious right got a grip in the USA with the election of Trump, we need America to show leadership in the slowing down, never mind the halting of global warming, but in fact it is doing the opposite.

@Marionville I saw this meme the other day and the numbers really made me fearful of how far we have come. This is mostly within my lifetime. Its obviously not limited to big cats.

@MsAl Shocking....man has a lot to answer for, The Tiger numbers in particular are extremely worrying. As you say, we are hunting and destroying the habitat of other species at an alarming rate.

I've got to agree with you.

Yes, and even some nonreligious who also like to utilize air travel for vacations, use herbicides and pest killers to have pretty lawns, and buy cheap Walmart clothes so their kids can have decent stuff.

Not to mention the corporate interests making billions off irresponsible practices and spending billions to keep them unregulated.

It sounds like you are saying our technological advances have caused us to expand to much. That's kind of what I'm getting at.

I don't understand your assertion that libertarianism is not viable because of the need for human cooperation. Libertarian principals do not dictate solidarity as a means of governing, rather it is the equality of right for individuals to organize themselves in accordance with their own strengths and weaknesses. They don't want the abolition of hierarchy, that's anarchists and communists.

I agree with your assertion that humans broke evolution by utilizing intelligence to achieve a level of success unobtainable to any other known life form, but I don't believe that's a problem, because I think that applied intelligence can do much better than evolution, and the development of our societies is prof that intelligence is better than evolution because of what it has achieved in such a relatively short time.

@MsAl yes, exactly. But beyond technology, its an understanding how culture and society keep us in check evolutionarily and we've exceeded our carrying capacity 5000 years ago. Its just a matter of time before Nature and evolutiona catches up with us.

@MsAl, @Happy_Killbot With all due respect, but I disagree with both your primary assertions. Libertarianism depends upon the altristic side of human behavior and history shows us that on large scales that this is not possible. I also content that intellectualism is no match for evolutionary fitness, regardless what Ayn Rand asserted. Afterall, who is John Galt?

@t1nick I had to look up who John Galt was, and I still don't get your point. As far as I can tell, he took advantage of a problem for profit, and caused other problems as a result. How is that any different from the requirement of altruism in an authoritarian structure? Authoritarian nations like North Korea or Venezuela demand altruistic governments for the people to survive, and in practice they tend to keep most for themselves and only give the people enough to survive.

In a capitalist nation, the damage done by greedy individuals is minimized as long as they are not part of the government. Most of the damage done is by the largest hierarchical structures, so having more smaller hierarchies seems to be a win-win for everyone. On top of this, it's actually closer to our evolved nature to have small hierarchies, with about 100 people each instead of the large multi million people ones we see today.

@Happy_Killbot greed is mitigated by being private? in what universe? i have a short definition of libertarianism: selfishness. that about covers it.

g

@genessa Why can't governments also be greedy? I'm taking an anti authoritarian stance here, not a pro capitalist one.

@genessa i concur. Most prople who push libertarianism usually just don't want people telling them they can't perpetuate thrir boorish attitudes and behaviors. Laizzez faire economics does not work because the majority of the participsnts milk the honest individusls through their own greed and selfishness.

@Happy_Killbot
governments are greedy, just look at our own right now.

@t1nick Yes, because governments and individuals can be greedy, we should subdivide resources and influence as much as possible to prevent any one person or group from having to much power. That's what libertarian principals are all about. Keeping individuals from having to much influence on anyone else. The hard working individuals who get taken advantage of aren't doing what they do for themselves, and then they wonder why their bosses are getting rich. They have the option to quit at any time. Entering into a workplace like that is fundamentally authoritarian, and the solution for that is... become more authoritarian?

You see the hypocrisy there right? That is what happened to a lot of countries we called socialist. The socialist parties took over violently, ceased all the means of production, and then declared themselves socialist before instituting horrible policies. There are individuals on both the left and the right who are slowly moving things in an authoritarian direction, and that could have dire consequences for everyone.

@Happy_Killbot
You claim that re-distribution is part of the Libertarian philosophy. You are the first Libertarian Ive ever encountered who take this stance. I agree with the short comings of earlier Socialists regimes.

But laizzez faire does not work. As history proves over and over again. People are not naturally altruistic and that in itself is the downfall of libertarianism. In my experience the majority of persons pushing libertarianism are among the least altruistic I've met.

@t1nick No, redistribution is not part of my philosophy! Quite the opposite actually, I am only talking about specialization here, people should only control the resource they are most qualified to handle, and that this will happen naturally as long as everyone has nearly equal opportunity.

The fact that some people are not altruistic is a strong argument for libertarianism, because it limits the damage. If one greedy individual is in control of a company, then one trade collapses, but its just that one trade. If one greed individual is in control of your country, then that could collapse your country. We can't have no one in charge of these things.

@Happy_Killbot
Too simplistic of an understanding of human nature. Socialism or Communism in its theoretical form seems ideal. But human nature has shown it to be as flawed as capitalism. Libertarian is just another system that requires its participants to follow the rules and 10 000+ years of human history demonstrates it remains untenable. Too many selfish people are drawn to Libertarianism for it to ever have a chance at being successful.

@t1nick Alright, lets take a step back here. We both agree that some people are not altruistic. The problem with socialism and communism is that you need a strong authoritarian entity to maintain it, otherwise everything will regress back to the natural order of the strong taking what they want. As far as I can tell, that's the problem most have with capitalism, the strong take what they want. What happens when that entity isn't altruistic?

Capitalism in its modern form is only a few hundred years old, although you can't really pinpoint a date because it came into existence gradually, although the ideas cropped up around the 16th and 17th centuries.

@Happy_Killbot
I concur with a lot of this post. Unfortunately. the form of capitalism being practiced today is short sighted and its goal is short term. The present system rewards immediate and short term gain. Colloquially its can be called predatory capitalism or cannibalustic capitalism. It focuses on gaining the maximum profit at any cost with total disregard for outcomes or future impacts. It will cannibalize its own industry fir a quick profit.

This is not the only model that capitalism can follow. If it took a long term (Asian model) aporoach or an evolutionary approach, your arguments would have more likely of success. Inan evolutionary modrl, the goal us to maintain the best circumstances for all stakeholders ad infinitum. Emoyees are fsirly compemsated and owners are reasonably compensated for their efforts, investments, and acumen. Much like what you are making a case for. But relies less on altruism and more on rational planning.

@t1nick our own "government" isn't even a government. it's a wannabe dictatorship working on being the real thing. it isn't an excuse for us all to rush out and become libertarians, or anti-government. in fact it is proof that we NEED government. trump hasn't even filled most of the necessary appointments. the republicans in congress are sitting on their asses except when they are inspired to do something really nasty. the democrats in the house are passing good bills so that they will exist when the senate is blue once more. railing against government is silly. we desperately need GOOD government. the fact that we have dreadful and at the same time insufficient government right now isn't an indication that government is bad. thinking so is like thinking that because you got food poisoning from spoiled food, food is bad.

g

@Happy_Killbot when did i say governments couldn't be greedy? reread what i said, please,

g

@genessa
I agree with most of what you said, but Im not sure which point you are taking exception to. I think government is necessary and there are other models of each system that could work if people's minds were right. I understand why people are experimenting with other forms including Libertarianism. I just don't personally think Libertarianism is the right answer.

@t1nick specifically killbot's assertion that "[i]n a capitalist nation, the damage done by greedy individuals is minimized as long as they are not part of the government. Most of the damage done is by the largest hierarchical structures, so having more smaller hierarchies seems to be a win-win for everyone.' i was disagreeing with that.

g

@genessa adding more government isn't going to fix the problem, at best it will just mix the good and the bad parts. We need to cut bad government programs for efficiencies sake alone. Your analogy to food can be used against you. Eating more food only increases the chance that you would eat something bad, so you should eat less and be pickier about what you eat instead of gorging yourself.

@Happy_Killbot Thats all well and good. But IMO I do not think that humans in large groups are capable of self-regulating. As an example, if were up to the greater American population, we would still be experiencing Jim Crow across the nation. It took government to move to realize the elimination of that scurge.

Likewise, if we left it up to business and industry, the Chatanooga River would still be burning from chemicals dumped upstream by chemical businesses. It took government to implement the 1972 Clean air and Clean water Acts.

My point is that it takes a balancing act between too much government and too little government. Humans are incapable of self-regulation beyond the tribal level. Usual societal checks and balances break down and all other checks and balances beyond that are artificial and ultimately do not work for long.

@t1nick I can agree with that, there are some things that are better and actually more efficient when done at government levels. Other things are better left privatized. I'm not saying we should dismantle the government, just limit it to the minimum necessary instead of paying for things that don't really provide any benefit to society, or couldn't be better achieved by corporations. No one wants I phones to be federal. No one wants roads to be private.

@Happy_Killbot
Regarding a discusdion I took part in today that addressed population size and human self- regulation, see the thread by MsAl that begins:

Religion and tradition repressed people and kept them stupid

True and I agree totally. Religion is wrong . There is no God. That doesn't change the fact that the earth is very becoming uninhabitable because of scientific innovations such as cars chemicals and mass deforestation..

Many want to stop this but it's hard to stop "progress"

No time to find links right now but there have been many many many people killed in scientific experiments. Gynecology from experiments on slaves, so much medical knowledge from stuff done in nazi experiments during the halocaust, various syphilis exposure experiments on prisoners and minorities and many more eugenics, lobotomies exc..

That's not what I was I was referring to though. I was actually talking about Climate change, dead oceans and other reasons our planet is losing the ability to support life. We made the abilities to clear cut the planet and dump chemicals everywhere using fossil fuels to make all this progress happen.