Let's talk about our century's greatest problem within

>>2006473
These are American problems. Sorry.

> that a militant, zealous minority
you mean majority.

all eco-people are nutjobs because caring for the environment is essentially anthropomorphism.

>>2006483
I disagree. Above a certain level of intelligence, it's just logical to be environmentally conscious, because our survival and well being depends on it.

>>2006495
>because our survival and well being depends on it.
our survival and well-being is the sole reason behind anything 'bad' happening to the world.
>it's just logical to be environmentally conscious
it isn't if you're doing jackshit about it.

you want to help the environment? don't have children and off yourself.

File: 1445190670495.jpg (65KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 650x650px

>>2006496
also if you don't kill yourself you're breaking the first rule of changing the world: start with yourself.

File: 132784653113.jpg (52KB, 887x874px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 887x874px

>>2006496
>you want to help the environment? don't have children and off yourself.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about in the first point. The don't have children part is fine, but advocating for killing oneself to help the environment? That is hardcore dark green "logic".

>>2006496
>>2006500
Yeah, why work for actual improvements by influencing decision makers, when you can kill yourself, leaving humanity and Earth on the same crash course as it was on before?

I'm getting seriously tired of 4chan's aversion to all kinds of political activism, enforced with the help of ebin memes such as "dem stupd es-jee-wees" as such.

>>2006501
your existence harms the environment.
>>2006503
there are no 'actual improvements'

the only value there is to earth is the value you give it, you think the sun is going to cry if earth becomes a dead rock?

fuck no, no one cares.

>>2006496
It's a myth that the world is over-populated or will soon be over-populated. Of all people I thought you'd know this. We are more than capable of dealing with the world's population and the shit that comes with it.

Unless you're just being your average edgy self.

>>2006473
I was with you until 'protecting animals that are known to be dangerous' and then using pit bulls as an example. Kind of shows you are uneducated on the topic and shouldn't be speaking of it.

Sure, if a dog is dangerous, then kill it. But if we were to assume all pit bulls are dangerous, then Labradors would have to all be euthanized, too, along with boxers, flat-coated retrievers, catahoula leopard dogs, american bulldogs, mastiffs, etc etc. And that does not help the aggressive dog problem or the dog mauling problem, which happens mostly due to bad or ignorant owners. Not to mention, not all pit bulls are inherently dangerous, and not even all APBTs are inherently dangerous

Also, just because an animal has the potential to be dangerous, does not mean it should be culled. Not insinuating that's what you are implying, but it's a very slippery slope to one bear attack, to all bears in the area should be killed. I am not against killing an animal that is a problem animal, and a problem animal doesn't even need to attack someone to be a problem animal. But just because someone wants to preserve some species of animals doesn't mean they are against killing the problem members. It just sounds like you are in favor of offing entire species

>>2006483
>caring for the environment is essentially anthropomorphism


holly shit does bugguy actually likes being a meme?

>>2006529
>le edgy ethical solipsist meme
I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but any attempts at discussing anything policital with you becomes entirely vain at this point.

>>2006542
I'm not saying we should kill people's dogs, I advocate for neutering them for free and banning the breeding of pits. Surely that is a reasonable request? I'd also have a couple of scientists take a good hard look on the other breeds too, but we all know it's usually the pits who cause the most trouble.

>>2006563
But pits represent 60+ breeds and all of their mixes. Of course they would cause the most trouble when they are the largest representative grouping.

You should probably find information that isn't funded by Colorado.

File: 1486183531472.jpg (48KB, 522x429px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 522x429px

>>2006529
>words of wisdom from a mentally rather slow gardener

File: 1411541558160.jpg (27KB, 493x387px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 493x387px

>>2006573
>mentally rather slow gardener

>>2006542
It's like the vicious circle with feral cats. You have the trap, spay/neuter, release v.s. culling. Catch and release is a very slow and almost impractical solution. The cats are still there to do damage, they just can't reproduce. Culling them fixes the immediate problem but it just opens up territory for other cats to move in.

>>2006531
>It's a myth that the world is over-populated or will soon be over-populated
there's no one claiming that in this thread.

my point is that living like we currently do ALWAYS harms the environment and if you want it to stop then you better stop existing.
>>2006552
ad edgynem.
>>2006592
>but it just opens up territory for other cats to move in.
that's a myth.

>>2006622
>ad edgynem
Whatever. "Logical fallacies" are only relevant within analytic philosophy, a discipline which, symptomatically enough, is contaminated by the same status quo politics that you propagate.

>>2006631
as long as you accept that I'm technically correct I'm good.

I don't need you to agree with me.

Oh my OP.

I can't believe someone has different values than you do.

>>2006622
It's a myth in what way? I've always heard people say it's not true but I never hear the supporting statement.

On a semi related note;
As far as I understand it, there will always be feral cats because there will always be a population of un-fixed stray cats that people will abandon. So aren't we just fucked no matter what we do?

>>2006662
>not true but I never hear the supporting statement.
there isn't any, there doesn't need to be any.

there's nothing behind the entire 'but it just opens up territory for other cats to move in'

>>2006662
Unfortunately feral cats aren't treated like the destructive pests that they are. They fit the definition of varmint but the law feels differently. Killing them will get you animal cruelty charges if you're caught. There will always be crazy cat ladys feeding "their" cats.

>>2006671

Cats eat rats, I'd rather have cats in my neighborhood than rats. So would most farmers that's why barn cats are a thing.

If you're so worried about cats we should reintroduce wolves.

>>2006677
>Cats eat rats
and thousands of songbirds.
>So would most farmers
only those that store their food like 1950.

rats arent an issue when you store food properly.

>>2006677

> feral cats are good for the environment, wolves are not.

No you wouldn't. You can kill off the rats. The law and the majority of your neighbors would defend the "cute" cats.

>>2006679
it's funny every time because cats are literally the most destructive species on earth.

there's nothing that even comes near them.

>b-but rats.
there isn't a single rat species that does more damage than cats, they just do more damage combined but half of all mammals are rodents so it means nothing.

>>2006563
>Surely that is a reasonable request?

That isn't reasonable at all. You are advocating banning a breed of dogs because people are scared of them. Have you ever even talked to these retards that are scared of pit bulls? Most of them can't even tell breeds apart and call everything a pit bull. A lot of recent dog attacks have been misattributed because people are fucking stupid. Look at dog attacks in the '90s, almost all of them were reported to be rottweilers because that was the breed for pussy ass bitches to be scared of back then. Now they're all pit bulls because people panic about dumb shit.

We live in a world where people actually think there is a battle being fought over Christmas. I don't know how you can expect so much from people.

>>2006680

Cats don't ruin food supplies the way rats do. Most of the bitching about their destructive behavior is about them killing other animals. So fucking what? That's what cats do.

>>2006679

Who are you quoting?

>>2006683

>That's what cats do.

Good. You see the problem.
They don't just kill to eat. They kill for fun.

>>2006473

Since I don't have a vegan diet I'm wondering about point 4. Why isn't veganism sustainable?

>>2006686

No, I don't see the problem. Birds can fly. If a dumb ass bird can't get away from a cat it got what was coming to it.

>>2006683
>Cats don't ruin food supplies the way rats do.
nothing ruins food supplies if they're secured properly.
>So fucking what? That's what cats do.
killing australia is just what canetoads do.

only canetoads do far less damage than cats.

just like every invasive species on earth does less damage than cats, everything does less damage than them,

they are the single most destructive species on earth other than humans.

>>2006690

How the fuck do you secure grain? I mean seriously. Do you know how food is grown and stored? Do you think farms have giant tupperware containers?

I don't give a shit about Australia.

>>2006695
in a bin, I lived on a farm most of my life and we always did it right, there were no rats because there was no food for them.

>>2006696
>there were no rats because there was no food for them.

The silos are full of food and rats and mice can get in there just fine. They haven't improved much since the magical rat filled '50s you referred to earlier.

>>2006701
I know a lot of farmers that have no issues with rats.

because most farmers here store food properly, get good america.

>>2006703

Probably because of all those pesky cats reeking havoc on all your precious rodents and birds.

>>2006706
yeah we've got subspecies that are almost extinct due to cats.

you dont see many threads about it because no one cares.

>>2006689
fledgelings can't fly
there is no way for birds to adapt to this incredibly unnatural density of small land predators, which also have no survival pressure on them

they are being fed and recieve vet care
killing is a hobby for them

>>2006709
you're not mentioning all of the aquatic mammals that are going extinct due to them.

File: 1369020246683.jpg (444KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1280x800px

>>2006473
lol at 2. I bet you're also one of those people who are just hipster about conservation and you only want to save animals that are unpopular because you're just so damn authentic.
>sharks, whales, pandas, and tigers, into the trash you go

>>2006707

And people killed the Thylacine. Life is rough down there.

>>2006709
> of small land predators
cats are large predators sadly enough.

>>2006711

Aquatic mammals now too? You have some vicious seafaring cats down there.

>>2006717
you can find this on google without my help.

most aquatic mammals are going extinct due to cats, toxoplasmosis is very dangerous to them.

https://www.animallaw.info/article/feral-cat-colonies-florida-fur-and-feathers-are-flying

It's an old article but the information is still relevant.

>>2006723

Sure, but getting rid of stray cats isn't going to get rid of that. Domestic cats shit gets in to the ocean too.

>>2006735
>but getting rid of stray cats isn't going to get rid of that. Domestic cats shit gets in to the ocean too.
there's no difference between cats that go outdoors and feral cats.

>>2006737

Right, so are you wanting us to just kill all the cats in world so some otters can stop eating their shit?

>>2006739
whats what it takes.

>>2006739
The ferals, yes. You should be allowed to kill them like a rat, raccoon, squirrel or any other small wild animal that is causing harm or damage.

>>2006744
>The ferals, yes
all cats outdoors are killed at sight.

you shouldn't compare them to rats as they're less.

File: Homer head.jpg (49KB, 624x468px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 624x468px

>tfw I'm an Environmentalist and believe in Nuclear Power

>>2006747

I used rats as an example because you can trap them. You should be able to set some conibear traps if you're having problems with feral cats.

>>2006753
>. You should be able to
but you can't.

which is one of the reasons they're the worst pest species on earth.

>>2006711
I was unaware of this issue.

>>2006531
>It's a myth that the world is over-populated
heh
HEH
HA HA HA HA

oh boy, I think this thread's over.
HA HA HA

>>2006664
Sounds like you have no argument and that you're just... wrong ;)

>>2006671
I understand that, my question is why the vacuum theory is, in theory, wrong. Because it's not a theorem, I don't even expect cross-peered studies or research on the subject, just another idea on why it wouldn't work.

Now keep in mind I want feral cats gone. I am no feral cat apologist, and I bet I've probably done more for culling feral cats than most people on this board. I just want to hear another side because all I hear are the pro TNR debate.

>>2006688
I'm assuming it's because the farming of it would take up more space, and often more valuable space (think rain forest and shit) than your average factory farming.

>>2006723
In large cities, many people will actually flush the dirty cat litter down the toilet. There are brands of kitty litter made specifically to be flushed. So that may be more of a general cat problem

>>2006756
Go kill yourself, then?

>>2006758
>and I bet I've probably done more for culling feral cats than most people on this board
you'd lose against me.

>>2006758
>I'm assuming it's because the farming of it would take up more space, and often more valuable space (think rain forest and shit) than your average factory farming.

I think that is the logic behind it but it ignores how much farmland is currently being used to feed animals we raise for food. I don't think everyone should go vegan but I really doubt it would be bad for the environment.

>>2006761
How many cats have you killed/fixed/otherwise prevented from reproducing?

All of mine are on a database, so it's easier fr me to recall.

>>2006764
directly or indirectly?

>>2006763
True, I didn't think of that. But as far as factory farming goes, I'm not sure how much land is used for the cows (generally they are packed in quite tight, right?) or how much of their food is actually plants. I know that many factory farmed animals eat the ground remains of animals, including their own species. I'd imagine taking them out of the equation would still mean less resources spent on them.

If you ask me, though, eating insects is the way of the future.high protein, fast reproducing, easily mass produced, require few resource... but no one will go for eating bugs.

>>2006768
Let's make it easy and say directly. I'm logging in now to figure it out

>>2006761
Wolfsbane???
;)

>>2006770
>and say directly
probably a few thousand a year, I doubt anyone on /an/ can even get near me.
>>2006771
it doesn't kill cats, it only helps them kill themselves.

>>2006776
in 1 year and 3 months I've euthanized 743. Before that there is no record. That doesn't include the TNR, because I don't know which cats were pets or stray/feral, or which cats were stray/feral and found homes, so that is all a blurry line. It's also taking my computer a really long time to figure out how many s/n I have participated in, and beyond that I think I will have to manually pick them out because it's an animal summary and not a person summary

>>2006770

Most cows are fed corn. A cow will eat thousands of pounds of corn in their lifetime.

In factory farming cows are usually raised up to a certain weight on a normal happy spacious farm where they can graze, then moved to feedlot when they grow up to fatten them up. Their grazing land isn't usually good farm land but freeing up all that land we use to grow corn would free up a lot of land to grow other foods.

I'm not a vegan so I'm not trying to say we should do all this but I'm sure we people would survive just fine without meat. I don't think people will ever stop eating meat but eating less might be a good idea all around.

>>2006792
>Most cows are fed corn
and grass garbage from areas that aren't used.

>>2006542
I know this entire thread is bait, but yeah with regards to shark culling, it just hasn't worked. In Australia, Great Whites have been killing a number of people recently. The government put out a tonne of baits to catch sharks and then cull them if they were over a certain size. The problem was that they only caught Tiger Sharks which weren't responsible for any of the attacks.

>>2006677
Morrissey is that you?

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep/02/morrissey-attacks-australian-plan-to-cull-2-million-feral-cats

File: trucks.jpg (151KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 800x518px

>>2006798
oh no he's retarded

seriously someone should buttfuck morrissey already so he can go on with his life

>>2006798

Fuck Australia though. We never should've went there. It's like everything is a fucking disaster there. We should've just left it to the monkey men. It's too late now so let's just raze the piece of shit.

>>2006814
Just need to harden the fuck up with regards to ferals and allow for native animals to come back. TNR can fuck off.

Things should then start getting better

>>2006551
yup. guarantee nocireception is going to be in this thread eventually.

>vegans are advocating for a lifestyle that cannot be applied to everyone, while also destroying the environment they supposedly are trying to protect, as it is simply not sustainable for everyone to be vegan.

nah man.

One of the basic arguments in favor of "veganism for all" is that plants aren't as big of resource hogs as animals. Look at the amount of water and grain needed to sustain a cow. You could save time, money, and resources by just giving that directly to a person.

You'd have an easier time making health arguments to justify not being vegan.

>>2006877
>Look at the amount of water and grain needed to sustain a cow. You could save time, money, and resources by just giving that directly to a person.
the argument assumes that most of what a cow eats is edible for humans.

in reality, when you aren't lying to yourself and others to further an agenda, everyone going vegan isn't sustainable.

everyone being alive is becoming unsustainable anyways, but going vegan just speeds up the collapse.

>>2006831

I'm not the one that's scared of cats. Sounds like your pussy ass rodents need to stop being fags.

>>2006881

Sure, people aren't going to survive on corn alone but we could use the farmland devoted to animal feed to grow food for humans.

>>2006888
about half of what cattle eat, at least in the US, is wild plants growing on land that can't be farmed.

Also food grown for humans is about 90% waste, leaves and stems and shit. Cattle eat that waste.

>>2006890

Cattle eat shitloads of corn grown specifically grown for them. They graze but it still takes a ton or two to of corn to get a cow to slaughter weight.

>>2006893
>Cattle eat shitloads of corn grown specifically grown for them.
yes, but they eat the whole plant, turning the ~90% of the crop that humans can't eat into food.

and the reason we feed them corn is because the US government pays farmers to plant more corn than humans can consume. If for some reason we saved ALL of our corn for human consumption the cattle would still eat all the stems and leaves, because that's the most efficient method of using the entire crop.

getting rid of meat just means most of the plant is wasted. It isn't used to make food. It could be used to make fuel, or fertilizers, but neither one is an efficient method of making food.

the most efficient use of crops for food is to let humans eat the ~10% that's edible and feeding the rest to herbivores for meat. You stop eating meat and you're wasting almost all of the plant.

File: corn-use.jpg (65KB, 486x380px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 486x380px

>>2006908

They don't eat the whole plan when they're getting fattened up. They eat corn kernels. They aren't subsiding on scraps from human use. The amount of corn that is actually grown for human consumption is pretty fucking low.

Corn is subsidized because of it's use as animal feed.

If something happened and we didn't have cows we would not be using that farmland for corn anymore and we could grow something else.

>>2006923
>They don't eat the whole plan when they're getting fattened up.
of course they do.
>we could grow something else.
yep, something we still wouldn't eat all of.

>>2006933

No, they generally do not. They can eat the rest of the plant but they aren't fed it at the feed lots where they eat most of their corn anyway.


Cows eat a lot of fucking food. I think you should research what goes in to a cows mouth. Not for any ethical reason, I had beef for lunch, it just sucks when someone stays stupid when they don't need to

>>2006975
>I think you should research what goes in to a cows mouth.
I worked three years on a cattle ranch.
when you "research" you're just asking people like me what happens.

and then telling me I'm wrong because my answers don't fit with your dreams.

>>2007031
>when you "research" you're just asking people like me what happens.
>and then telling me I'm wrong because my answers don't fit with your dreams.
not the one you're replying to, but, that is so true. A lot of vegans really do need a wake up call.

>>2007062
>A lot of vegans really do need a wake up call.
I don't really see it like that. I mean vegans are at least trying to address a real problem. Their efforts may be extreme, but their hearts are in the right place.

They aren't doing any damage, I just fear what they're doing isn't enough. It doesn't matter though, I sincerely doubt we're going to solve any world problems here on 4chan. My only hope is to offer a different view of reality to think about. There's nothing to win here, just conversations to have or not. Don't belittle people for saying what they think, consider what they say instead.

>>2007111
>are at least trying to address a real problem.
tell us about this 'problem'

>>2007114
yeah, no problemo bugs.

the problem is we're mining hydrocarbons to produce food and fuel. Our society and population is based on mining carbon fuels saved up during the last 4,000,000,000 years.

those fuels are going to run out. More importantly those fuels are poisoning us.

we will either find an alternative to those fossil fuels or most people will die and our current technological civilization will collapse.

that's the problem.

trying to find more efficient methods of feeding billions of people is the process towards a solution. Vegans are trying. Not succeeding, but trying.

>>2007115
oh, everyone knows the solution to that problem.

it's just that no one wants to go back to having an average lifespan of 40< riddled with diseases and parasites.

>>2007119
well it's only a problem from a certain point of view.

it's also a self-correcting problem, and one that none of us has any control over.

>>2007122
I personally don't see it as a problem because by the time it gets out of control I'll be old or dead and I don't plan on having children so I don't need to feel bad for them.

>>2007123

>implying anyone would willingly have sex with you

>>2007111
>I mean vegans are at least trying to address a real problem
Which one? Consumerism? Corporate greed? Capitalism? Mass production? All of the above?
>Their efforts may be extreme, but their hearts are in the right place.
That is a terrible argument. You know what they say about the road that leads to hell, and what is it paved with.
>They aren't doing any damage
Not quite. Sure, some of what they do is okay and I can get behind - trying to get people to think about what they eat. Trying to get people to buy more healthy foods, vegetables, fruits etc. But this isn't suitable for everyone. We are omnivores, and to be truly healthy most people do require animal products - be it eggs, milk, fish or even meat. No amount of propaganda is going to change that.
I support octo-lavo vegetarians personally most, because what they eat doesn't leave you with deficiencies. Living completely vegan does, and that is harmful. Not to mention vegan products are seriously overpriced, and it simply isn't sustainable for everyone to be vegan, even if that miraclously happened.

That said, vegans focus on the wrong issues. They are against eating eggs for example because how various corporations treat chickens. How does that even make sense? Go against the corporation, not the people. It's like treating the greenhouse effect by telling people to stop breathing, but leaving the coal burners and deforesters alone.
Also, it doesn't matter if you have your own farm, your own fucking chickens which can run about free range, you are STILL not allowed to eat their eggs, because then you're not vegan. It's literally insane.

>>2007123
yes, while I already have a couple children and a bunch of nieces and nephews that will likely have to deal with this shit.

Not that I can do anything to save them, but I'm certainly not going to hate on vegans for trying.

but even for the sake of debate it might be worth understanding what my opponent is saying and considering the possibility that their position has merit? I mean, how does anyone learn if they just reject everything that doesn't agree with them?

>>2007125
>Which one? Consumerism? Corporate greed? Capitalism? Mass production? All of the above?
carbon emissions in most cases.
>That is a terrible argument.
It's not an argument. I'm saying I'm on their side at least in principle.
>That said, vegans focus on the wrong issues
I agree.
but when I say they aren't doing any harm I simply mean there aren't enough of them to do anything, and even if the whole world suddenly decided to go vegan that's a mistake that would correct itself in a matter of days.

>>2006678
>and thousands of songbirds.
good, these fucks shit all over and are obnoxious. If I wanted to hear repetitive loud sounds early in the morning I'd get a kid.

>>2007183
Move to a city.

>2. Protecting animals that are known to be dangerous

Why not? I dont value dangerous animals over non dangerous. Yes sharks and wolves can pose a threat to dumb humans. That doesnt mean they shouldnt be protected from being wiped out.

Humans>farm animals>wild prey animals>wild predatory animals>pets

>>2006473
>intelligent, reasonable people are writing us off.
not really.
what happens with intelligent people is that they weigh each point on its own merits and often side with both camps on individual points in a dichotomous society.

these supersmart sorts are what's called "moderates" in the US, and they rule the country.

now it's certainly possible to mislead the middle, but not for long. And if "our" side is attracting too many delusional nutjobs, perhaps it's not the right side to be on?

Perhaps we should distance ourselves from the environmentalist movement and accept that it's gone full retard. Just aim for the middle and be part of the silent majority that actually rules the vocal fringes?

>>2007188
I do live in a city.

File: 5.jpg (16KB, 320x206px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x206px

>>2007195
This is by far, the most digusting, vile and atrocious thing I've read ALL YEAR. Merely the suggestion to become moderate makes me sick in the stomach. What's next, we should become part of mainstream society and vote for politicians corrupted to the core, like the common sheep that voters actually are?! Statist scum!

This is gross. You are gross. I'm gonna have to scrub myself for hours to get the strench of that post off myself.

>>2006758
I've always viewed TNR as sort of a bandaid and not necessarily the best solution for handling the feral cat issue forever.

It has its issues, but until the culture changes and people are fixing their cats (or at least keeping them indoors) instead of having unlimited litters, it's really the best option.

>>2007258
the effects of TNR are equal to doing nothing at all.

>>2007191
I thought OP meant things like protecting dogs that have mauled children and wild animals that continually attack people. In which case I could understand that; it's unfair to make a dog spend the rest of it's life de-fanged and in a shelter, or leave a lion that's been using people as easy prey to keep on chugging, and the people defending those animals give everyone else a bad name. But completely banning certain pets or destroying an entire species because it could give you boo boos is ridiculous.

>>2007258
>>2007261
Unfortunately neither killing or TNR will do anything to the population unless you get every single cat in the 'colony'. Even then it has the very good probability to pop back up through outdoor cats and people abandoning strays.

The only reliable way to keep it down is through education and low-cost and easily accessible spay/neuter clinics on top of TNR/trap and kill... There is a reason stray/feral colonies are much more abundant in poor areas

>>2007266
the only reliable way is to get rid of all cats outdoors.

making exceptions is why it's hard to get rid of them.

>>2007268
It will be extremely difficult to do that, although I concur. There are too many people that play on the 'it's natural!' idea to let cats outdoors, or that it makes them more happy. The RSPCA will actually kill thousands of adoptable cats a year rather than adopt their cats out to a home that doesn't have a cat flap.

It wouldn't just be education, because there is a conflicting ideology that appeals to sensationalist, which is most animal lovers.

>>2007281
My local shelter has an indoors only policy for adoptees, except for the occasional unrehabilitatable feral kitten.

People get pissed at them, but it works pretty well in that they aren't getting the same cats showing up to the shelter all the time

>>2006503
When actual SJWs stop getting assblasted by tits in video games then we'll stop making fun of them.

your dark greens category is comprised of various unrelated groups of people with nothing in common other than you being mad at them. you're a crazy person.

>>2007281
Cat owners aren't in it because they care about animals most of the time. They're in it because 'hurf durf i ned a pet so ill get a catte". Nothing to do with ethics or environmental conversation to them. They're either sad crazy fucks or isolationist hermits who don't even give a shit about other people much less other animals and let their cats shit around all over other people's property because they're also too stupid to understand the concept of a gated fence or they just don't give a shit.

The ubiquitousness of the domestic pets is not really a good thing, in the end. It just means there's far more retards in the mix operating BYBs and selling pitbulls, feeding their pets chocolate, feeding their pets booze and cigarette smoke and then endorsing cancers like PetCo with their wallets because they can't even put the five seconds it takes to Google search how wrong they're being when they do that. With exotics, if you fuck up, they die and you're left with a costly hole in the wallet. With domestics, if you fuck up, even if they die, you can just adopt or buy another one for cheap, or fuck, just pick up a abandoned stray off the streets because there's plenty of retards who will just let their pets loose when they move. Most of the time, unfixed.

And compassion? We slaughter millions of chicks a day just to power the egg industry and let the runoff shit up our rivers and wetlands because it's too fucking difficult (read: costly) to bother mitigating it (and the average joe who fishes on those rivers gets fucked too. The taxpapers who have to foot the bill for its inevitable cleanup, the farmers who drew irrigation from it having to turn to unsustainable aquifers to cope). The small farmers and ranch owners who actually bother to raise their beasts in a manner that isn't completely disgusting are a drop in the ocean compared to Tyson Foods or JBS.

>>2007556
The people who will support the price premium above factory farmed meat are also a drop in the ocean compared to the consumer who won't give a shit.

The Christians don't care because they think the world's ending in 40-100 years and God will make the tarpan and the thylacine and the Baiji all come back to life after the Tribulation (considering how fucked the situation really is, I don't fault them too much for this one). Why care when you have Eden awaiting you? The politicians, they don't care because it doesn't line their pockets, there's no money to be made in environmentalism and even the general population doesn't give a shit enough to make it worthy of mining votes from. The poor? They can't give a shit. The rich? The ones that do make substantial contributions to environmental cause are nothing compared to the sins of those that don't. The middle class? They choose not to give a shit. The government? The EPA is fucking worthless.

It took fucking two and a half decades to convince the mouthbreathers that climate change was a thing despite overwhelming scientific consensus. The environment's fucked, my friend. My advice would be to try and experience it while you still can. Go to the rainforests of Amazonia before they're all slashed and burned. Go to the last unspoiled regions of China that aren't about to be filled in and fucked by factory smoke producing iShits for our 'pleasure'. Go pet a lammergeier - they're near threatened now, their breeding population has been stagnant or declining across its range for several decades.

>>2007435
no, you just aren't familiar with the California liberal.

the traits OP list often go together. A suite of memes that circulate among the same group of people, reinforced in the liberal echo chamber.

kinda like how conservatives tend to be racist, statist and highly religious. It's not that those things naturally go together, that's just the fusion that currently exists.

>>2007585
>no, you just aren't familiar with the California liberal.
Why should I give a heck about "Californians" when I don't even live in USA? From what I've seen from there, everyone is a living meme, regardless of their political stance.

As much as I hate conservatives in my country, I'd never do them the disservice of comparing them to the high ranking conservatives in USA.

>>2007597
>Why should I give a heck about "Californians" when I don't even live in USA?
I can't think of any reason.

since you're admittedly ignorant of the subject and disinterested as well, I'll bid you good day. Perhaps we'll meet again in some other thread where you interject your ignorance and apathy. I certainly hope so.

going green is a stupid term anyway.
earth is not green, its bluer than sonics arms.

>>2007556
>>2007559
Didn't read lol

>>2006531
Just because we have the capacity to sustain the earths population and many more, doesnt mean there isn't too many people. Honestly, if you think the world is bettter with 7 billion people than 1 billion, your a fuckwit

>>2006563
>we all know its usually the pits that cause the most trouble

Um what?

>>2008912
we don't actually have the capacity to sustain the Earth's human population.

not for long anyways. Outside guesses are anything from 50-250 years before we face an ecological collapse due to the loss of fossil fuels to make fertilizers.

this whole population-larger-than-2 billion-people thing will end pretty soon unless we find a fuel as cheap as oil.

>>2006689
Fuckin cat apologists.

If I felt like shooting you, is 'dumb ass anon deserved it because he couldnt get away' a valid respone?

>>2006473
>Life expectancy was 40

Please stop perpetuating this meme. Life expectancy statistics are usually horribly skewed by infant mortality rates (which admittedly are lowered with advances in modern medicine) In the paleolithic, life expectancy was 54 (http://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000_LHEvolution.pdf)

Which is pretty great considering you didnt spend the best decades of your life working your ass off. And before you harp on about the hardscrabble life of a hunter-gatherer, do some reading. For 40 years now we've been learning that hunter gatherers practiced a refined subsistence, see Sahlin's ''Man the Hunter''.
Honestly, I'd give up a few decades for a life in which my work was hunting and foraging (my 21st leisure activities ffs) and had more leisure time than I do now.
Anecdotally, I can say I've witnessed similar things having spent extensive time with Aboriginal people of Northern Australia.

>>2008928
>Life expectancy statistics are usually horribly skewed by infant mortality rates
funny since we don't actually know infant mortality rates from fossils or burials.

>>2008929
That wasn't so much about prehistoric infant mortality rates as about how using life expectancy as a measurement isnt particularly reliable. Sorry of that was unclear

>>2008934
statistics, man.

we use modern proxies to guess at infant mortality. Given the extremely high rates of infant mortality in modern paleo cultures we'd expect estimates to be closer to 12 years average life expectancy or for the average burial to be an adult of about 200 years old.

when someone says life expectancy of a paleo culture was 40-60 they very certainly aren't counting infant mortality. They're going off of the actual estimated ages of burials or using a modern tribe as a proxy while ignoring stillbirths and most infant death.