Liriodendron Tulipifera

In my opinion, there's probably no difference. Yet again, the typical environmentalists get all worked up about the wrong issues. Practically speaking, I really doubt drilling in ANWr will have much impact at all on the environment. Oil spills seem to come largely from accidents with moving vehicles by land or sea, from what I hear, and the migration of caribou, which everyone seems to be getting worked up about, will probably be well thought out by the engineers who lay out the pipes, due to public pressure and governmental regulation..... Anyway, there are the only two concerns I hear the enviros talking about. They don't seem very plausible. A good example of a multi-use forest, in terms of oil extraction, is the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. There are oil rigs all over. It's a nice forest. The real problems in that forest are caused by deer overpopulation! Also, it's possible to cause environmental damage because of knowledge errors or incomplete knowledge, but such actions wouldn't make one a non-environmentalist, IMO.

These are great questions. I wouldn’t group “drillers in ANWR” into any specific category. Such a categorization should not be done on groups, and must be based on an individual’s worldview. So let me answer your question as to what I would consider a “non-environmentalist.” After some serious thought, I have arrived at the following working description. A non-environmentalist shares key characteristics with the environmentalist or the religionist: a denial of certain parts of science because of a conflict with his or her worldview. In describing the following groups, I will not necessarily be inclusive of all beliefs in the worldview, but I will be descriptive enough so that you can understand what I mean, hopefully. Environmentalists pick and choose particular aspects of science to accept. For them, the “environment” is more than the sum of its parts: a superorganism that has some sort of spirit, a device which should not and must not be understood, only felt. And this “faith in Gaia” is placed above all facts. Only those facts which do not threaten this faith are accepted. For religionists, those aspects of science having to do with evolution are rejected, because they perceive that if man has evolved from animals, this violates their faith that man was created “in God’s image.” Likewise, this “faith in God” is placed above all facts. Only those facts which do not threaten this belief are accepted. It is important to recognize that religionists and environmentalists do not necessarily reject ALL science; only those aspects threatening to their worldview. To do so would be to reject the advances that make a modern life possible. Likewise, a non-environmentalist must deny aspects of science that result in any finding opposed to their worldview, which is that all aspects of human industrial activity are good and result only in positive effects for humans. This would necessitate the denial of any research which finds specific environmental problems that are caused by human activities. This could mean, specifically, findings related to the effects of specific industrial activities on human health, private property, or ecosystem function. Only those facts that do not threaten this faith in mankind are accepted. All three types of individuals necessarily reject any findings which contradict their own ideology.

Cool! Since my PhD project involves some specific organisms from NZ and I spent six months there, I'm very interested in this country. I'd love to move there someday! I'll have to brush up a bit on my Kiwi news. Can you suggest any good sites? I usually go the the NZ Herald. Are there any alternatives you suggest? Where are you located, again? In Auckland?

Cool! Forgive me if I'm clueless, but what's the URL? I look forward to reading an Obejctivist/Kiwi outlook on life!

Really? Here's what you said before. "I intend to write a whole in-depth essay on the subject of sexual arousal and what causes it when I've studied it in more depth (this is not partial certainty, partial speculation: I believe I've reached a universal principle that covers all forms of arousal)."

You are the one speculating! What you're essentially doing is projecting onto all others what, I presume, you've gleaned from your own experience. Does the fact that many black people commit crimes mean that every black person is going to commit a crime? Does the fact that every President of the United States has been a white male mean that every white male would make a good President? Likewise, just because someone is a wonderful person, ideal in nearly every aspect, it does not necessarily mean they are a great sexual partner. It doesn't mean they couldn't become one. At this point, I'm curious as to what you mean by all of this, since you've backtracked on your initial definition of "visualization" and its role in masturbation. I never said orgasm wasn't possible without physical stimulus. I said "in certain circumstances." Orgasm is possible without physical stimulus, in dreams, at least. So clearly there is a possibility in humans, from two examples I've now given, that the cause of orgasm can be purely physical or purely mental, but my opinion is that the BEST sex is when they are present together. That's really all I am saying here.

Well, this will be different for each person, obviously. In sex, either masturbation or otherwise, there is a balance between the purely mental and the purely physical. Does the mental activity necessarily command a better sexual experience? I don't think so. Just because you might be with a wonderful partner (or imagining some wonderful partner), does that necessarily mean the sex will be great (or the sensations will be great)? It's entirely possible that you can be with a less than ideal partner and have the orgasm be great, and be with an ideal partner and have the orgasm be not-so-great. Must this be due to some flaw in one's character? Doubtful. The proper physical stimulus needs to be there. If it isn't, in certain cirumstances, no amount of mental activity is going to get you there. Get what I mean?

Yes, I do. The brain does not always cause sexual arousal. Sexual arousal and orgasm can occur by spinal reflexes alone, simply by tactile stimulation of the genitals. For instance, men who have had their spinal cords severed in accidents can still have orgasms and ejaculations through tactile stimulation of the penis. This is the only stimulus necessary. Obviously, no no signals from the brain are necessary.

Dependent on what arouses an individual! I'd prefer not to go into graphic detail here. You're saying you need to imagine an object. I'm saying I don't. Why has your position somehow become the default or status quo on this issue? This is the most arbitrary assertion I've heard in months. All you're really saying is that because you've never been able to masturbate without visualizing something, that no one else can. I'm laughing my pants off. The bottom line is, there's no way for me to prove that I don't need to visualize an object any more than you can prove that you must, other than someone doing an MRI scan on the both of us while we masturbate to see which parts of our brains are active. I look forward to reading this essay of yours.

Nonsense!!! Maybe you can't!! This is entirely dependent on the individual.

Wow, I didn't realize that. It will be interesting to see how their elections turn out this year. There seems to be a pretty big split there on how to handle these issues. I wasn't suggesting that infringment of personal rights was the way to combat terrorism, as I stated previously. I'm just saying that it's nice that (I think it was Chirac?) came straight out and said, "We are a secular nation." so perhaps I should have removed that from the "they didn't give in" part of the sentence. My point was: can anyone imagine ANY US politician saying that America is a secular nation? George Bush? Certainly not. And certainly not the Clintons, Howard Dean, or John Kerry, who invented this "people of faith" bullcrap to try to remove votes from the Republicans. The only US politician I can think of that ever said anything similar was our first president, who said the USA was not in any way founded on the Christian religion. We have certainly regressed since that time!

Yup. Part of the response is appropriate (Interior Minister of France saying,"We will wipe out these scum!") while the response of the media ("We haven't done enough to reach out to these people") is not. Remember that France did go through that ban on religious insignia for its public school students, although I don't think infringment on clothing choice in public schools is really the way to handle extremism. However, as expected, it was, of all religious groups, the Muslims that complained the loudest. All Over The World! France did not give in and insisted that it is a secular society, a distinction I sure wish we would make in America!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4395934.stm I think the French populace, as well as that of the Netherlands, is starting to understand the seriousness of the Muslim problem, perhaps better than Americans do, and they are seriously worried about the infiltration of their secular culture by these zealots. Several political figures have campaigned in these countries solely on this problem. Although they came under fire, a significant portion of the population gets it. Hopefully even more French will now realize that "reaching out" (aka giving up and giving in when force or the threat of force is used) is not the answer. But they might need more episodes of terrorism to actually get it. The threat of a nuclear Iran on their doorstep might spur them in the appropriate direction. Who knows? triumph$, you're right, there's this constant pull in socialist countries to "do more." No surprise. they cannot make correlations, obviously.

Thanks for the constant fatherly advice. But I actually had this all calculated out for myself. I am aware that hybrids are not a mature technology but I would saved considerably over the life of the car with gas as it now is, calculating at $2.50 per gallon, which is dirt cheap now in my area... about $2000 I would have saved at 200,000 total miles, even adjusting for the price difference in the car! I already have 75,000 miles on my car and it's only 2 years old. I drive a lot. By the time I'm done with payments, my car might be ready for the junk heap, even though this is a Toyota with a good engine. And my new one won't be a traditional vehicle if gas stays like this! Fords suck, I'd never buy one. The consumer ratings are awful. As for another used car, it wasn't worth it with the interest rates at the time. I got 0% financing on this one. It's a Pontiac Vibe, which as you know, has everything that Toyota has except for exterior styling, about the only thing Pontiac has going for it! God, this has gotten off topic. LOL.

Well, I'd go for it, too, if I could afford it. Or rather, if I was interested much in speedy cars. IYou guys - I'd prefer to spend my cash on other things. Anyway, full speed ahead!

Yeah, I agree. Transcendentalism, all that crap... Anyway, on the oil paper. To be honest, I'd seen a poster with the same data, not the paper. And just hte graphs, not the methodology. It was a mistake to throw something out that I hadn't read, so I apologize for that. But Charlie is a pretty controversial person for debunking a few nonsense theories in ecology, so I generally trust him. Anyway, I just wanted to throw something out there from a scientific journal rather than the random junk often thrown around on this forum, like random websites.... on a variety of issues. So, while I knew basically what the paper would say (that oil production will eventually peak) I didn't know what the mechanism was for arriving at those conclusions. Anyway, the authors were extremely modest in their conclusions, admitting that previous estimates have been wrong as well and that these may well be, too. In any case, it's not like anyone else here has actually provided any scientific data on that issue! Everything here is random speculation. I don't know whether some technology is available or not that can detect differences in density in the Earth's crust, it seems like this should be a simple enough problem to solve and calculate, assuming a certain rate of efficiency increase each year for oil production, combined with data for high and low economic growth rates. Anyway, I think we'll have shifted to other technologies long before oil ever "runs out." Oil sucks! I'm tired of these prices in gasoline and natural gas! I don't really care what the reason for these prices is. My next car will be either a hybrid or a diesel than can burn McDonald's french fry fat or some other biodiesel fuel. I think I made a serious mistake buying the car that I did two years ago. I decided it would only be financially advantageous to get a hybrid if gas got above $1.50 per gallon. WELL!!!!!

heh, that's funny. Actually, there are lots of biotechnologists! We actually have a biotechnology major here. "ecosploitationist" hah. I guess I'll just call myself an ecologist, biologist, or mycologist, for the time being

Sounds good to me!

I agree! Notice also that he said we needed an environmental movement based on science, not religion. Not that we didn't need an environmental movement at all. Anyway, I commonly face students who use totally unscientific phrases like "life force" etc. These things are picked up by the pop culture, mostly. "But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form." I really agree with this statement of his. But why the heck is this? I mean, even in educated circles, even in science, there are so many people who cling to a belief in God. Why? I really don't get it. Emotional need, mostly? THe inability or lack of desire to face reality? Of course, it's the Christians who think religion is "under attack" when it's really rationality that's under attack! Basically, I think a lot of the wacko Christians feel a need to control people, as do the wacko environmentalists. Basically, they don't trust that human nature is good, and thus, people must be coerced. That's it, basically. I think.

Um... well... since I grouped them with the terrorists in my last post in this thread... yes. I'ev actually never considered the Sierra Club to be an "innocent group" and believe I'd mentioned them once before in another thread. See also my webpage, monicabeth.squarespace.com Scroll to the appropriate post at the very bottom, written in May, for what I think about these organizations. "What is it you appreciate about nature, other than the fact that man currently depends on the photosynthetic cycle for his survival?" For every reason I've described, which are ALL of the reasons I can think of for why man would want to and should want to appreciate nature: biotechnology (at least, organisms are the basis for biotechnological and genetic improvements, and many, many medicines we have), photosynthesis (which is simply part of a much larger nutrient cycle), and for aesthetic reasons, the last being the least important. For instance, I could care less about extinction of some random bird of prey at the top of the food chain just because it's cute and/or fuzzy and/or majestic looking, and/or more closely related to humans than a mushroom. I'm much more concerned about the loss of microorganisms, which are much more useful to biotech industry AND in the environment for ecosystem function and nutrient cycling. For example, I could care less about the elimination of any human disease organism, UNLESS the maintenance of stocks could potentially lead to some future benefit for mankind. Personally, I think the last remaining stocks of smallpox should be destroyed. The cost of them getting into the wrong hands far outweighs any benefit they might have, biotechnologically speaking, in the future. However, (Disclaimer!) this is not my area of expertise and I really don't know that much about why these stocks are being maintained.

Cool. I actually suffered from this guilt complex for awhile, especially growing up. And then I thought, "Why I am I making excuses for others when I wouldn't make those excuses for myself?"

OK, these are all helpful posts in the sense that I can see where Objectivists or students of Objectivism are coming from. And I think I can also safely say that on my campus, at least, the view that man is unnatural and not a part of nature is not predominant, except among younger, less educated students. I don't doubt that there are plenty of educated scientists that hold these extreme anti-man views. In fact, the Gaia "hypothesis" was developed by a very prominent scientist who sometimes visits this campus, Lynn Margulis. However, I think most people in the scientific community have their heads on straight. I tend to have confidence in people if they have not shown a specific tendency toward anti-man behavior or beliefs. Basically, I believe people are generally good, and can be given the benefit of the doubt. My dilemma is this: while there are a minority of individuals in society (I don't know what percentage, but I believe they are a minority) that actively pursue anti-man goals, and call themselves environmentalists, there are a majority of others (scientists, laypersons, students) that want environmental problems solved but see that the reason for doing so is benefit to man (aesthetic value, economic value [biotechnology], or ecosystem function), and that these people also group themselves under the umbrella of environmentalism. For instance, let me give you some example of the type of attitude I encounter daily. We have a department of Forestry on campus, and one faculty member has a bumper sticker on his car that says "For a Forester, Every Day is Earth Day." So what am I to conclude from this? Foresters, by definition, are professionals that manage forests, that believe that forests should be used for human ends: recreation, appreciation of wildlife or nature in general, and harvesting of timber for profit. I guess what I'm getting at is that there are a large group of people out there that are not anti-man, and while they may be misguided in some ways, usually by thinking more government controls are the answer to "environmental problems", a nebulous concept at best, they really don't have evil motives. They are rather like the people that call themselves Christians who really don't believe half the crap in the Bible!! This is why the term "religionist" is more appropriate for the hard-core religious people, while Christian is more appropriate for the rest that are not hardcore believers. So while I can accept the term "environmentalist" as evil, at least in Objectivist circles, I cannot accept it as evil when used by others who don't define it in this way, precisely because in popular use in society, there really does appear to be a lack of a better term! My concern is exactly the type of attitude that Inspector seems to hold: that anyone, without examination of his or her beliefs or motives, who speaks out in favor of "nature" or "the environment" is evil. Inspector, can you clarify as to what you mean by this? And is this indeed what you meant? That we must automatically be suspect of these people as much as we must automatically be suspect of someone who calls themselves a Christian? This seems very silly to me. Other things have to be taken into context. For instance, does the person have dred locks, a drugged, depressed, or miserable look, and is dressed in grunge? Or is this person clean-cut, bright eyed, with a positive outlook on life? Of course, we know that evaluating people in this way is not always so clear-cut. However, I think my point is obvious. Furthermore, nobody here has really offered any solution to Objectivist-leaning or rational, pro-man individual (such as me) as to how to define themselves if they appreciate nature. All I've heard is a lot of lectures about not calling myself an environmentalist. The only alternative seem to break down the definition of environmentalism into sub-categories, which I commonly see on campus. Here, most people generally use the term environmentalist to describe themselves, while reserving the term "militant environmentalist" for those people who hold what you guys have described as "environmentalist" views. I can assure you that ALL of you appreciate nature in some sense, since plants produced all the oxygen you breathe and are the ultimate source of all of your food. To think that appreciation makes us evil or suspect is, as Felipe said in another thread, pretty mindless. Also, I think we have to make a distinction between joining radical militant environmentalist groups (ELF, PETA, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.) from other groups like the Adirondack Mountain Club or the New York Mycological Society.... Clearly we can all see the difference (I hope!) between organizations that advocate and practice terrorism vs. groups that wants to get out and hike or collect mushrooms, or raise money for such interests!

In response to Inspector's statements in my introduction thread, I thought it might be interesting to examine the definitions of environmentalism, as I'm fairly certain that we all come to this forum with slightly different definitions. Googling this term for popular definitions, I found the following: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=defin...nvironmentalism Furthermore, the online dictionary offered sub-definitions of environmentalism, such as free market environmentalism (interesting that I had never heard of this term, but would probably consider myself to be part of this category!), radical environmentalism, radical values environmentalism, and militant environmentalism (PETA, Sierra Club types). Free market environmentalism is the idea that the free market provides the best solution to environmental problems. The general definition offered by Google is that environmentalism means the preservation of the environment from destruction, presumably destruction by man, the purpose of such preservation conveniently avoided in the definition. So, this could mean the preservation of the environment for man's benefit (aesthetically or for ecosystem function, upon which our lives currently depend at this point in human history) or for its own sake, since there are many who posit that nature has "intrinsic value." Without getting into the fact that intrinsic value is a false concept, I'd like to ask for everyone's opinion on what environmentalism actually means TO YOU. What do you think of when you first think of the word? I can see the point that words ending in -ism generally imply an ideological viewpoint, i.e. religionist, evolutionist, etc. But what is this ideology, exactly? And what term would be best to describe those who wish to preserve the environment for man's sake - aesthetic, economic, or otherwise... I've recently been discussing this issue with my Botany students (mostly freshmen) and discovering that many of them come from diverse backgrounds and have varied opinions on this subject. In short, they have not been able to come up with a very good definition of environmentalism, either.

Well, thanks, all of you, for your welcome! I hope to learn a lot here (I already have) and contribute positively to the forum. Again, the introduction was long overdue, so sorry for that! Are there any other people employed in the biosciences here??

I think these types of discussions go on in educational circles more than people think. For instance, I've recently been discussing this issue with the students, asking them if they view environmentalism as anti-man, or if they think that nature has intrinsic value. Most of the students are surprisingly pro-man, which is pleasing, considering there are militant environmentalists on campus and they are generally the loudest voices among the undergrads. Inspector, I was not the first person who used the term environment, environmentalist, ecology, or ecologist in this thread. In fact, I would have preferred the subject hadn't come up at all now, because I'm rather tired of battling everyone on this forum that feels a need to bring my profession, my ethics, or my ideology into question! And lest you backpedal again on this issue, saying that you didn't insinuate that I was anti-man, I quote from your original: "She has shown only that her personal, positive sense of life drastically conflicts with the evil, anti-man ideology of environmentalism... and that the two cannot survive together. One must go."

Keep in mind, also, that Ayn Rand spoke about ecology as a social principle. I define ecology in its strictest sense. It comes from the Greek word for the economy of the house, oikos. Basically, ecology is the study of the relationships between organisms and the nonliving parts of the environment. That is how it is defined in scientific circles. To define it differently is fine, but to argue that my ideology is not sound simply because I study ecology.... simply because we are talking about different definitions... is just ridiculous! I see. So I need to actually stop thinking and adopt YOUR definition of environmentalism, rather than thinking for myself. Have a nice day! Oh, by the way, I will add that at my university, which is focused on environmental science and biology, we also have majors in forest engineering, paper science, environmental and resource engineering, biotechnology, etc. Most of these people would probably call themselves environmentalists. And most of these people are not anti-man. So if you want to redefine the majority of people who want to harness nature for man's use, in terms of the minority, who are anti-man, that is your choice. Until the environmentalists who truly want to dig in the bare soil for roots become the majority among the ranks of those who call themselves environmentalists, I will keep using the word. As always, it is sad that the wackos who label themselves get all the publicity. This happened with the word "liberal" as well.