Modern Day Issues Compared To Previous Issues

[Seil]

Y'know, I sit at home and watch movies like "Talk To Me," that's set when Martin Luther King was assassinated, or "Watchmen" that was set during the Vietnam War and I think that I was born in the wrong era. Like Brad Pitt says in Fight Club, "We're the middle children of history... ...No great war..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98LeLZ2crZE&feature=related) I want to fight for a great cause.

Well, really, it's a stupid idea. There's not really a lot to fight for. Nothing really seems important to me right now. There's the riots going on in Egypt, there's the man who set himself on fire in Tunsia (http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/tunisian-man-sets-himself-alight-1.1007235) protesting bleak prospects of its citizens...

This just came across as a thought - I don't know why I'm posting this... But there's the desire there - the desire to be a part of something great, to take a stand for what I think is right. To be... active, for lack of a better word. Right now all I can do is to sit down, drink my whiskey, smoke my smokes and watch riots in the streets over something that happened afore I was born.

Should I take an interest in History, then? Should I try and get into Political Science next semester? What is there to fight for, let alone something that a struggling student could achieve?

[Sithdarth]

Go kick NASA in the ass and get them to send you to Mars. Potentially cheaper than a war, a much bigger deal historically, and much fewer potential casualties. Doing great things and being part of something big does not always mean killing people or fighting for a cause.

Or you could wait around for the technological singularity and sentient AI if it ever happens. That is another good one and I guess there is the potential for a great war there as well.

[rpgdemon]

If you're looking for a cause to fight for for the sake of being a part of something and fighting, you're really going about things wrong.

[Aerozord]

Go kick NASA in the ass and get them to send you to Mars. Potentially cheaper than a war, a much bigger deal historically, and much fewer potential casualties. Doing great things and being part of something big does not always mean killing people or fighting for a cause.

problem is NASA lost its funding, so no more missions to anywhere. Actually, fight for that, lack of a national space program seems kind of a legit complaint to me

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Should I take an interest in History, then? Should I try and get into Political Science next semester? What is there to fight for, let alone something that a struggling student could achieve? [/color]

The millions of people dyin gevery year of preventable causes so somebody can have his 6th SUV?
If you're taking your philosophy from fight club you're doing it wrong.

[Premmy]

The amount of privileged white-boyism in this post is damn near painful, excellent seil-posting, man.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

White man's burden sucka!

[Magus]

The current problems seem just as important. I'm not sure what you can do for the people rebelling in various Middle-East countries other than being informed about it and informing others about it and maintaining solidarity. If there is anything specific you can do via Facebook in spreading these people's message, I guess you could do that.

I don't know what you can do to "change the world" besides live as honest a life as you can and, if you have children, or have relatives with children, instill in them values that make them at least mildly less prejudiced and selfish than the current generation of people in the world today. There are always little things you can do such as donate money or even actively help out with various movements, or in your local community, but "fighting a great war" is not how actual change is brought about, it's brought about by people volunteering their time and money on local-level issues, in the places where they see problems. The locality might be the Middle East or Africa or Asia or what have you, it might be your backyard. Armed conflict has basically not solved any problems I can think of--the Civil War didn't solve racism and prejudice in the south, for example. It took regular people marching and sacrificing their time and money and often their lives over the course of decades to "solve" that problem (to the extent it has been--obviously there is more work to be done, not only in the south but now in the southwest, the north, everywhere in the U.S.). Basically shooting somebody hasn't solved any of the actual problems of humanity, it's only been a short term solution because people are forced to act a certain way, as opposed to wanting to act that way--that kind of societal change takes years of hard work.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Magus reminds me: Don't have kids, don't own pets, don't eat meat- there you go you, you've helped the world a lot.

[Magus]

I thought everybody was allowed to have two kids. Or one kid and a dog (seems to work out to about 1 and a tenth of a kid--in fact you could maybe have two dogs and one kid?)

[Si Civa]

Magus reminds me: Don't have kids, don't own pets, don't eat meat- there you go you, you've helped the world a lot.

If I put gun in my month and pulled the trigger, could I bring peace into world?

Like in theory taking it to that point could make it happen.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I thought everybody was allowed to have two kids. Or one kid and a dog (seems to work out to about 1 and a tenth of a kid--in fact you could maybe have two dogs and one kid?)

Based on what?
Have no kids, you're doing the world a favour.

If I put gun in my month and pulled the trigger, could I bring peace into world?

Like in theory taking it to that point could make it happen.

Yes. Do it.

[Seil]

So it's cynical to want to help people? To be part of something bigger than you are?

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Everybody on the internet thinks being cynical makes them edgy, cool, and apart from the mainstream. Just like everyone else on the internet.

[rpgdemon]

So it's cynical to want to help people? To be part of something bigger than you are?

No, it's just foolish to want to fight for the sake of having a cause to fight for.

You shouldn't just go, "Where is a cause I can fight for?! I wanna fight!", you should have an actual motivated interest in a cause, and work towards it.

[The SSB Intern]

You shouldn't just go, "Where is a cause I can fight for?! I wanna fight!", you should have an actual motivated interest in a cause, and work towards it.
Tell that to the seniors in high school desperately trying to find some volunteer so they look good on college applications (of which I am one).

[Bells]

Y'know, I sit at home and watch movies like "Talk To Me," that's set when Martin Luther King was assassinated, or "Watchmen" that was set during the Vietnam War and I think that I was born in the wrong era. Like Brad Pitt says in Fight Club, "We're the middle children of history... ...No great war..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98LeLZ2crZE&feature=related) I want to fight for a great cause.

Well, really, it's a stupid idea. There's not really a lot to fight for. Nothing really seems important to me right now. There's the riots going on in Egypt, there's the man who set himself on fire in Tunsia (http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/tunisian-man-sets-himself-alight-1.1007235) protesting bleak prospects of its citizens...

This just came across as a thought - I don't know why I'm posting this... But there's the desire there - the desire to be a part of something great, to take a stand for what I think is right. To be... active, for lack of a better word. Right now all I can do is to sit down, drink my whiskey, smoke my smokes and watch riots in the streets over something that happened afore I was born.

Should I take an interest in History, then? Should I try and get into Political Science next semester? What is there to fight for, let alone something that a struggling student could achieve?

I have the excat same feeling, so i kinda know what you're getting at... to actually make a sort of Impact, be a part of the moving wave instead of the crowd that sees it moving.

You are not aspiring to be a huge leader or a breaker of frontier, you just want to be a parte fo a positive change, someone who makes something that stands the test of time, even if it's only your own time.

For a long time i've bee thinking on how that works... and i think it's part just opportunity. Right people at the right place at the right time... but there are MANY ways to go around trying to poke change....

See Geroge Carlin for example, the man made Change. The older he got, less his work was about comedy and more about being "in your face". I always took Carlin as a man who wanted to be Wrong... because he was acid sharp like an arrow... but he would call everyone on their bullshit to their faces... and i always took that as a sign that "maybe..." if someone were to stand up and prove Carlin wrong, the world would be a bit better that way...

So that's a great feeling to aim for. I don't take folks like Colbert and jon Stewart out of that picture either... they use their tools to poke a line of thinking that HAS caused ripples... and they are not Policital or Huge tycoons... these 3 are just comedians with access to midia and great minds.

So, i guess, the first step is to narrow down your expectations from "the world you want" to "the cange you can"... take something you are passionate about, and something you can actually accomplish and be good at it...

One of the reasons i became a Safety Technician is because i actually noticed that i could teach and instruct people to how not go back hoem dead or missing fingers while doing their daily jobs and that i coudl actually use law to force a company into expending that extra $1 to get the Dust mask that actually works... that is a great feeling, that is something that makes me feeling a bit more complete, and if i could get more traction or range to my thoughts and desires i would expand that beyond... but it's not something i can do right now. But it's not out of mind either.

See what you really want to be a part of Seil, it's not all that hard to make an impact, the hard part is to pick a clear goal...

[Aerozord]

So it's cynical to want to help people? To be part of something bigger than you are?

help who exactly? Humanity as a whole? cause excluding long term ramifications to depleting resources, humanity is doing pretty freakin well. Help a specific group? Again who do you feel is suffering so much you feel compelled to help them? Thats not as condescending as it sounds, I mean that sincerely, answering that is what you need to do first.

[Si Civa]

So it's cynical to want to help people? To be part of something bigger than you are?

I would imagine it's quite idealistic to want help people instead hurting them when trying to 'help' them, sir.

Edit:// Though there's lots of way fighting, some of them even peaceful. But to change things you don't need always be part of something bigger, but instead talking people overall about issues may help them see things in new light be it politics, homosexuals rights, climate change, anything really. Because while it can be argued that dropping bombs to issues has changed them more than talking (what 'being part of bigger picture' has usually been in some degree), it would be pretty neat to change that method to something hella lot nicer way to make people see in my opinion.

[Amake]

A story: I took a walk without thinking about where I was going and ended up in a part of town I'd never thought was there. I walked by an apartment building where a tiny old woman was struggling to get her walker out the door, so I held the door for her. She was immensely thankful, I mean not quite like I'd donated a kidney to her grandchild but maybe like I'd changed a flat tire on her car. It was a little shocking how much getting through the door apparently meant to her. I walked on, noticing how I couldn't see or hear anything moving.

The end.

[Magus]

Based on what?
Have no kids, you're doing the world a favour.


The concept of having only two kids is the concept of replacement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates). That way population doesn't go up.

You are right, of course, in saying it doesn't go down. But we might be able to solve the problems brought on by our current overpopulation with technological advances in the future (solar power, algae farms, etc.). If people at least practiced only having two kids max they wouldn't be increasing the population. It's easier for people to accept than saying "don't have any kids".

[Aerozord]

The concept of having only two kids is the concept of replacement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates). That way population doesn't go up.

You are right, of course, in saying it doesn't go down. But we might be able to solve the problems brought on by our current overpopulation with technological advances in the future (solar power, algae farms, etc.). If people at least practiced only having two kids max they wouldn't be increasing the population. It's easier for people to accept than saying "don't have any kids".

you do know that he doesn't live in a country with a birth rate exceeding death rate. US would be decreasing if not for immigration, most 1st world nations this is true. The population growth is from second and third world nations mostly

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The average first world country birth rate is well below the replacement rate (which is like 2.1 or something- I think the average first world birth rate is 1.4ish) but those countries populations go up by immigration. China which is the biggest grower is actually well below replacement not but is still going up massively because of the echoing effects of past generation boom- it takes a while to level. I don't see why it matters. Are we at a magical population level we should try to maintain? Why do we have a right to maintain our population at the level it is? Why should we try?
The concept of replacement is pretty meaningless.

I have heard arguments like "the poorer countries are having most kids, they should stop" which is ridiculous- it's a world problem, there should be a world solution- first world kids consume far far more resources than 3rd world kids- and yes they should stop but they are not going to.

But I'm not even arguing a world demographic problem here or anything. I'm just arguing you personally- if you want to help the world, not having children will help the world immensely.

[Aerozord]

as you said, we aren't at some magical population level that should be maintained, works both ways. Earth can still sustain this many humans with space and renewable resources. As for non-renewable, they are non-renewable. All a lower consumption rate would do is delay the inevitable. Saying not having kids help the world is like saying an individual human life is inherently parasitic and by that logic mass murder would "help the world immensely".

Its also very unrealistic goal. Its like trying to push abstinence as a form of birth control. These are strong instinctual urges, not to mention the psychological desire to have a family of your own and offspring to pass on your knowledge, possessions, and genes to.

Still convinced we need a decreasing population? Fine, I actually agree, but telling people to only have a single child is far more realistic and still decreases population. But if you really think the world needs a sudden drop then just give Seil the war he wants, because increasing the death rate is the only way that will happen in the near future.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

as you said, we aren't at some magical population level that should be maintained, works both ways. Earth can still sustain this many humans with space and renewable resources. As for non-renewable, they are non-renewable. All a lower consumption rate would do is delay the inevitable. Saying not having kids help the world is like saying an individual human life is inherently parasitic and by that logic mass murder would "help the world immensely".
It depends who you murder. If you're murdering anyone who is above like 5 then the world has invested lots of resources in them and to make the deficit back we're relying on their productivity in latter life/current life. Same problem with wars- you're murdering all the most useful people. That's why we are murdering people in potentia.

Its also very unrealistic goal. Its like trying to push abstinence as a form of birth control. These are strong instinctual urges, not to mention the psychological desire to have a family of your own and offspring to pass on your knowledge, possessions, and genes to.

We also have strong instinctual urges to murder each other, steal each others shit and go kick the shit out of lesser animals so they know what's coming to them. We can curb that, we can also curb reckless child mongering.
We're not cavemen anymore. Fuck you nature!
Edit: Also it's not like we don't already do it. Birth rates have plummeted in first world countries last 100 years or so. Also later developing countries are also seeing it- as societies become more prosperous birth rates drop. We just going to extend that. With horrible mutagenic gas.

Still convinced we need a decreasing population? Fine, I actually agree, but telling people to only have a single child is far more realistic and still decreases population. But if you really think the world needs a sudden drop then just give Seil the war he wants, because increasing the death rate is the only way that will happen in the near future.
Nah but you see then you get the problems of babies born outside the limit- they going to get hidden from the government, not have welfare, not looked after problem. That is why enforced sterilisation is the proper answer.
Think about how awesome it would be, we're the last generation, we can do whatever the fuck we want, can't get pregnant, no real consequences for anything, just have a bitching party, trash the earth- who cares?

[Aerozord]

I am going to assume you are joking because I hope you are not so short-sighted as to believe voluntarily making out own species extinct is a good thing. While I view nihilism as a legitimate philosophy, by its logic you will be dead before overcrowding is an issue so what do you care. Do whatever you want anyways.

[Overcast]

Everyone should just be more selfish. Saving the world isn't really important, it is bigger than you are and unless you think you can get enough people behind you to do something radical and different you'll never make an impact worth caring about anyway. So do all you can to save and serve yourself above anyone else, you'll regret it much less later and it might even earn you the prestige to make a difference at some point.

But you won't want to because, fuck the world you're rich.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I am going to assume you are joking because I hope you are not so short-sighted as to believe voluntarily making out own species extinct is a good thing. While I view nihilism as a legitimate philosophy, by its logic you will be dead before overcrowding is an issue so what do you care. Do whatever you want anyways.

Why do I care if the human race is extinct? Why do you care? What reason is there to propogate it? I don't understand why it would a bad thing. I'm not saying extinction is a good thing, I don't really care either way.
It's pretty low (read: non-existant) on my list of priorities. I don't care whether the human race goes extinct, I see no reason why I should. We had a good run.
Like the adsolute last group of people alive will have a rough time, being old with no youngies around to do work but eh, what you going to do?

Also that is totally not what nihilism is about.

Edit: And my philosophy is about maximising the partay.

Everyone should just be more selfish. Saving the world isn't really important, it is bigger than you are and unless you think you can get enough people behind you to do something radical and different you'll never make an impact worth caring about anyway. So do all you can to save and serve yourself above anyone else, you'll regret it much less later and it might even earn you the prestige to make a difference at some point.

But you won't want to because, fuck the world you're rich.

What a dick!

Edit2: No wait, instead of outlawing children we'll say you can have children but you have to buy a license and the license costs like $50,000 and that money is earmarked for social services. Man, I totally just solved all society's problems.

[Aerozord]

Why do I care if the human race is extinct? Why do you care? What reason is there to propogate it? I don't understand why it would a bad thing. I'm not saying extinction is a good thing, I don't really care either way.
It's pretty low (read: non-existant) on my list of priorities. I don't care whether the human race goes extinct, I see no reason why I should. We had a good run.


because without progress, without continuity, all of our pursuits of knowledge and advancement from the time first organisms formed in the primordial ooze would all be meaningless. This very mindset is inherently selfish and self serving and serves no purpose but satisfying base short term desires with no regard for sacrifices that came before to make your own very existence and pleasure possible. Everything you enjoy you can only do so because of sacrifices of others. Food you are eating, from the hard work of farmers, butchers, truck drivers, not to mention the animal and plant that had to die for it.

Sex? true can do this without much sacrifice, if not for your goal to not have children which required centuries of study in contraception to allow.

Probably argue that, what do you care, long as you can party. And thats why I said that outlook is nothing but short-sighted and selfish. It is the real parasitic and detrimental existence because all you'd do is feed off of all the hard work of others and never contribute anything of consequence to future generations because as far as you are concerned only you, and by extension your generation, matter.

I care about reproducing, and continuation of our species because I care about others. I want my hard work, my knowledge, my contributions to our species to benefit those that come after me and for them to take that and make something even better and help even more people. Perhaps I wont succeed, after all pretentious to assume I will have a significant impact, or anything down my line. But it wont be from lack of trying

[Professor Smarmiarty]

because without progress, without continuity, all of our pursuits of knowledge and advancement from the time first organisms formed in the primordial ooze would all be meaningless. This very mindset is inherently selfish and self serving and serves no purpose but satisfying base short term desires with no regard for sacrifices that came before to make your own very existence and pleasure possible. Everything you enjoy you can only do so because of sacrifices of others. Food you are eating, from the hard work of farmers, butchers, truck drivers, not to mention the animal and plant that had to die for it.
Meaning to whom? What does "progress" mean? It means humans can live better lives than those of generations past. It has no instrinic value.
People in the past might be all like - we worked really hard to invent shit and things so you can live your lives now you want to throw it away- and be real sad, but that will be quite sad because I don't lynch black people so I don't care. Besides they are dead, they got more important things to worry about.

.
[QUPTE]
Probably argue that, what do you care, long as you can party. And thats why I said that outlook is nothing but short-sighted and selfish. It is the real parasitic and detrimental existence because all you'd do is feed off of all the hard work of others and never contribute anything of consequence to future generations because as far as you are concerned only you, and by extension your generation, matter. [/QUOTE]
I can't help people in the past, people in the future don't exist, don't have to exist, people in the world now exist, can be helped.

I care about reproducing, and continuation of our species because I care about others. I want my hard work, my knowledge, my contributions to our species to benefit those that come after me and for them to take that and make something even better and help even more people. Perhaps I wont succeed, after all pretentious to assume I will have a significant impact, or anything down my line. But it wont be from lack of trying

I care about others too. I care about people who are alive though, not potential future babies who don't exist. If they are not born, I'm not exactly harming them am I? They don't exist- why do we care about them- they are imaginary!
I just imagined hundreds of people getting shot to death, does that make me a mass murderer?

[Aerozord]

ability to perceive the future and our impact on it is one of our greatest abiltities as a species. Like I said you are only looking at it from your perspective and completely ignoring basic statistical probability. These future babies will exist because the likelihood they won't is almost non-existent.

I never said you were hurting future generations. I said you were being a parasite of past ones. Do you think your parents, grandparents, all your ancestors worked and strived for a better life just so our generation could just say "screw the future". Basically if we do as you suggest and this is the last generation, I mean everything you do is pointless. No one will be alive to remember it, no one will benefit from it. You will have just taken 10,000 years of cultural and scientific accomplishments and use it all just so the generation you belong to can have fun. Frankly it seems like a waste

[Overcast]

What a dick!


Only one person ever really mattered.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

ability to perceive the future and our impact on it is one of our greatest abiltities as a species. Like I said you are only looking at it from your perspective and completely ignoring basic statistical probability. These future babies will exist because the likelihood they won't is almost non-existent.
Yes but the key is that in my scenario, they don't!
I mean yes, in the real, current world we should care about the future. But if we sterilise everything we don't have to- that's why it's fantastic! We have the technology to do this, the statisical probability will rocket towards 100 once we drop the knife.

I never said you were hurting future generations. I said you were being a parasite of past ones. Do you think your parents, grandparents, all your ancestors worked and strived for a better life just so our generation could just say "screw the future". Basically if we do as you suggest and this is the last generation, I mean everything you do is pointless. No one will be alive to remember it, no one will benefit from it. You will have just taken 10,000 years of cultural and scientific accomplishments and use it all just so the generation you belong to can have fun. Frankly it seems like a waste
We had a good run, we had good times, we had lots of bad times- doesn't sound pointless to me.
I don't care what people int he past thought or did, they were different and generally pretty bad times. And I'm sure they don't care what I do now- why? They are dead!
Why do we care about legacy and the future? We'll be dead! And so will everyone else!
Humans aren't progressing to some grand goal, they just kicking it however they can.

Only one person ever really mattered.

Was it me? I bet it was me.

[Aerozord]

actually screw it, this is completely pointless and bogging down a thread inwhich someone expresses a very understandable problem of trying to find their place in the grandscheme.

my whole reason for arguing your statement in the first place wasn't because I disagree (I do but that wasn't why) but because thats not what the OP was asking for. He wanted to have something to fight and strive for and telling him "just have fun" is contrary to what he was hoping for.

[bluestarultor]

There are plenty of things to fight for. The tigers, for one. Projections say they'll be extinct in the wild in the next few years unless action is taken to save them.



The thing is that people think they're supposed to take up a cause and bask in the glory of it all. 90% of the time that image is pure bullshit. My Environmental Ethics teacher knew Julia "Butterfly" Hill, a girl who lived for two years in a tree to keep it from being chopped down. She suffered exposure to the elements, lumber companies trying to starve her out, a lack of hygiene, living in a harness or on a branch the whole time, and you know what she got out of it?

For the two years of her live, the tree was saved. She finally got to come down, bawling in tears because of the emotional rush of it all being over. Then she wrote a book that my teacher outright called a piece of crap that no one ever reads unless it's for an Environmental Ethics class because, as my teacher added, "someone had to tell the story."

So basically a girl, and a really damn pretty girl who could have had anything she wanted in life, wasted two years over a tree and all she ever got out of it was a crappy book deal and the clout to tour all the environmental activism circuits, half of which are now classed as terrorist organizations.

So, really, a tree she may as well have married and obscurity.



Seil, being brutally honest, working for a cause is dirty, unrewarding work, even if you succeed. You can expect mud thrown in your face the whole time, a good nut-crushing if someone in ten miles of you fucks up and breaks a window or something, powerful enemies playing dirty, the system being stacked against you, and ultimately only the reward of having succeeded in what you set out to do, provided you even succeed.

A cause has to be something you BELIEVE in and want to fight for, not something you join just to belong. That's the only way it's at all rewarding.

Basically, you're going at it backwards. Find something you already strongly want to fight for and see if other people are doing it.

[Magus]

I just have to ask: was this like the most valuable tree in existence that lumber companies were willing to harass the girl for two years to chop it down or what? I mean maybe they couldn't cut down any of the really nearby trees either but that's like it. Seriously if I'd wanted to cut down a tree and someone was willing to stay in the thing for even a week to prevent me doing it I'd probably say "fine, keep the tree, sheesh. I'm probably wasting resources having somebody here with a chainsaw watching for you to get out of it so they can chop it."

I dunno, my father was in the timber business, I'll ask him if he would be willing to foment a situation regarding one tree or even a small stand of trees in such a manner that a girl felt hellbound to live in it for two years. I mean that's one tenacious lumber company. Maybe the lease lasted two years and she just had to stick around in case they decided to come chop it down? Like personally I'd figure after six months of checking on whether I'm in it they probably aren't going to bother. If they're still checking after six months and did chop it down after that, I'd have to ask who has the real problem here?

I mean seriously, folks. Treegirl might be a few screws loose but I'd seriously have to ask about the sanity of the lumber company in this scenario. People picking on Treegirl might be missing the real insanity in this situation.

EDIT: Having looked up Julia Hill I just have to say that saving a 1500 year old sequoia is worthy of applause and congratulation, not derision as people are giving her.

[bluestarultor]

I just have to ask: was this like the most valuable tree in existence that lumber companies were willing to harass the girl for two years to chop it down or what? I mean maybe they couldn't cut down any of the really nearby trees either but that's like it. Seriously if I'd wanted to cut down a tree and someone was willing to stay in the thing for even a week to prevent me doing it I'd probably say "fine, keep the tree, sheesh. I'm probably wasting resources having somebody here with a chainsaw watching for you to get out of it so they can chop it."

I dunno, my father was in the timber business, I'll ask him if he would be willing to foment a situation regarding one tree or even a small stand of trees in such a manner that a girl felt hellbound to live in it for two years. I mean that's one tenacious lumber company. Maybe the lease lasted two years and she just had to stick around in case they decided to come chop it down? Like personally I'd figure after six months of checking on whether I'm in it they probably aren't going to bother. If they're still checking after six months and did chop it down after that, I'd have to ask who has the real problem here?

I mean seriously, folks. Treegirl might be a few screws loose but I'd seriously have to ask about the sanity of the lumber company in this scenario. People picking on Treegirl might be missing the real insanity in this situation.

It was big enough that I think the way they saved it was by declaring it a historical landmark or something, so...

Like, they were already chopping down the whole forest. That happened to be the biggest tree in it. The group she belonged to were also lining up in front of the machines to protect some virgin forest nearby that there was a tort suit pending over the protection of.

Basically, the guys running the lumber company were already on the level of Captain Planet villains.

[Magus]

She's pretty famous as far as environmental activists go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Butterfly_Hill), I think she achieved something. I mean she was the go to book for that particular class as you mentioned. She's done some other stuff besides saving that sequoia tree.

Anyway I asked my father about it and he says that timber companies who clear cut and people who own property who allow clear cutting on leases are idiots anyway, since you're destroying trees that in several years will be worth far more money than they are as saplings and juvenile trees, which can usually only be used for paperwood. If you require people to only harvest grown trees you make much more off of your wood over the years than you do if they go in and clear cut everything.

He also agrees that chopping down sequoias is pretty evil all in all, I mean, they're frickin' sequoias. Things are endangered. It'd be like finding an American Chestnut and going "Man I can't wait to chop this shit down and make 500 bucks, hell yeah." Sure a big-ass sequoia would be worth substantially more than that but I don't think it's worth your soul.

[bluestarultor]

She's pretty famous as far as environmental activists go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Butterfly_Hill), I think she achieved something. I mean she was the go to book for that particular class as you mentioned. She's done some other stuff besides saving that sequoia tree.

Anyway I asked my father about it and he says that timber companies who clear cut and people who own property who allow clear cutting on leases are idiots anyway, since you're destroying trees that in several years will be worth far more money than they are as saplings and juvenile trees, which can usually only be used for paperwood. If you require people to only harvest grown trees you make much more off of your wood over the years than you do if they go in and clear cut everything.

He also agrees that chopping down sequoias is pretty evil all in all, I mean, they're frickin' sequoias. Things are endangered. It'd be like finding an American Chestnut and going "Man I can't wait to chop this shit down and make 500 bucks, hell yeah." Sure a big-ass sequoia would be worth substantially more than that but I don't think it's worth your soul.

Like I said, obscurity and Captain Planet villains. :P

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Captain Planet villains were awesome- they were like "I make all this money by ignoring environmental legislation but then I'm going to pour all the profits into polluting for the shit of it".