|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:30 pm
Devin_Kruljac_Truessence I don't care if it's there job, they should know the consequences they bring and perhaps get a better job that doesn't endanger the lives of the entire planet and Nature's beauty. Yes they may have a spouse and children to support but what would you rather live in? A life of poverty or a life of never seeing the grass be as green and trees in their natural beauty? I think a child would have more fun being with Nature than just sitting on bare ground with riches. That's how I view it anyway. Either way, I don't mostly blame the people who's job it is to do such horrible things, rather the company as a whole. The way that I see it, if people like that weren't doing their job, then none of us would have places to live, you know? I don't think that we have the right to condemn them for construction work so long as we're living in the houses and apartments which people like that built. And I think that, realistically, if a person has to chose between being able to eat and seeing a beautiful tree, they'll go with basic survival- any animal would, it's instinct. The point is that we need to be able to do both.^_^ I think that what it all comes down to, every time I look at the situation, is the fact that there are just too many people in our environment. We're overpopulated, and while we're in this state there is really no way for us to live completely in harmony with the rest of the world. We're trying, and we're definitely getting better. 3nodding But we've got a ways to go yet. Personally, I would like to see some sort of law passed which limits people's biological progeny. Think about it- if every family out there just had one less kid than the number of parents who went into it, we'd quickly cut the population on the planet in half- or more. I've no problem with polyamorous families, either- so they could still have one less child than the number of people involved and there'd be more people around to help raise 'em, to boot. If people want more kids, then they could still adopt- there are thousands of perfectly good children out there who need a home where they're appreciated. If people got divorced, it wouldn't matter- if you've had your kid then that's your kid. Maybe it would help people to place a little more value on children in general. But you could still adopt more, for a larger family. If there were just fewer people on the planet, I suspect that we wouldn't have half the problems that we're having now. There would be enough land for everyone without clear-cutting forests. There would be enough food for everyone without barbaric processing practices or over-farming, with its pesticides and herbicides. There would be enough fish for everyone without overfishing the oceans. There would be less trash and pollution, because there would be fewer people producing it. And there would be more room for other species to live in their natural habitats. When you think about it, most of our environmental problems are a backlash against the relative scarcity of some item that we need, or an overabundance of our society's byproducts. As for me, I'm never having kids.>_<
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:39 pm
WebenBanu Devin_Kruljac_Truessence I don't care if it's there job, they should know the consequences they bring and perhaps get a better job that doesn't endanger the lives of the entire planet and Nature's beauty. Yes they may have a spouse and children to support but what would you rather live in? A life of poverty or a life of never seeing the grass be as green and trees in their natural beauty? I think a child would have more fun being with Nature than just sitting on bare ground with riches. That's how I view it anyway. Either way, I don't mostly blame the people who's job it is to do such horrible things, rather the company as a whole. The way that I see it, if people like that weren't doing their job, then none of us would have places to live, you know? I don't think that we have the right to condemn them for construction work so long as we're living in the houses and apartments which people like that built. And I think that, realistically, if a person has to chose between being able to eat and seeing a beautiful tree, they'll go with basic survival- any animal would, it's instinct. The point is that we need to be able to do both.^_^ I think that what it all comes down to, every time I look at the situation, is the fact that there are just too many people in our environment. We're overpopulated, and while we're in this state there is really no way for us to live completely in harmony with the rest of the world. We're trying, and we're definitely getting better. 3nodding But we've got a ways to go yet. Personally, I would like to see some sort of law passed which limits people's biological progeny. Think about it- if every family out there just had one less kid than the number of parents who went into it, we'd quickly cut the population on the planet in half- or more. I've no problem with polyamorous families, either- so they could still have one less child than the number of people involved and there'd be more people around to help raise 'em, to boot. If people want more kids, then they could still adopt- there are thousands of perfectly good children out there who need a home where they're appreciated. If people got divorced, it wouldn't matter- if you've had your kid then that's your kid. Maybe it would help people to place a little more value on children in general. But you could still adopt more, for a larger family. If there were just fewer people on the planet, I suspect that we wouldn't have half the problems that we're having now. There would be enough land for everyone without clear-cutting forests. There would be enough food for everyone without barbaric processing practices or over-farming, with its pesticides and herbicides. There would be enough fish for everyone without overfishing the oceans. There would be less trash and pollution, because there would be fewer people producing it. And there would be more room for other species to live in their natural habitats. When you think about it, most of our environmental problems are a backlash against the relative scarcity of some item that we need, or an overabundance of our society's byproducts. As for me, I'm never having kids.>_<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:39 pm
Why don't you want any kids? I want two kids, a boy and a girl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:53 pm
Devin_Kruljac_Truessence Why don't you want any kids? I want two kids, a boy and a girl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:39 pm
WebenBanu Devin_Kruljac_Truessence I don't care if it's there job, they should know the consequences they bring and perhaps get a better job that doesn't endanger the lives of the entire planet and Nature's beauty. Yes they may have a spouse and children to support but what would you rather live in? A life of poverty or a life of never seeing the grass be as green and trees in their natural beauty? I think a child would have more fun being with Nature than just sitting on bare ground with riches. That's how I view it anyway. Either way, I don't mostly blame the people who's job it is to do such horrible things, rather the company as a whole. The way that I see it, if people like that weren't doing their job, then none of us would have places to live, you know? I don't think that we have the right to condemn them for construction work so long as we're living in the houses and apartments which people like that built. And I think that, realistically, if a person has to chose between being able to eat and seeing a beautiful tree, they'll go with basic survival- any animal would, it's instinct. The point is that we need to be able to do both.^_^ I think that what it all comes down to, every time I look at the situation, is the fact that there are just too many people in our environment. We're overpopulated, and while we're in this state there is really no way for us to live completely in harmony with the rest of the world. We're trying, and we're definitely getting better. 3nodding But we've got a ways to go yet. Personally, I would like to see some sort of law passed which limits people's biological progeny. Think about it- if every family out there just had one less kid than the number of parents who went into it, we'd quickly cut the population on the planet in half- or more. I've no problem with polyamorous families, either- so they could still have one less child than the number of people involved and there'd be more people around to help raise 'em, to boot. If people want more kids, then they could still adopt- there are thousands of perfectly good children out there who need a home where they're appreciated. If people got divorced, it wouldn't matter- if you've had your kid then that's your kid. Maybe it would help people to place a little more value on children in general. But you could still adopt more, for a larger family. If there were just fewer people on the planet, I suspect that we wouldn't have half the problems that we're having now. There would be enough land for everyone without clear-cutting forests. There would be enough food for everyone without barbaric processing practices or over-farming, with its pesticides and herbicides. There would be enough fish for everyone without overfishing the oceans. There would be less trash and pollution, because there would be fewer people producing it. And there would be more room for other species to live in their natural habitats. When you think about it, most of our environmental problems are a backlash against the relative scarcity of some item that we need, or an overabundance of our society's byproducts. As for me, I'm never having kids.>_< Yes you are perfectly right. We all need to survive and people are just puttting there primary needs first and as sad as it is in order to survive in todays world the number one thing you need is money. As for limiting births? I think that is a good idea, our limited resources are slowly diminishing and we need to preserve them as long as possible, perhaps limiting the number of children a family can have via natural birth is a good way to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:26 pm
Ritten Yes you are perfectly right. We all need to survive and people are just puttting there primary needs first and as sad as it is in order to survive in todays world the number one thing you need is money. As for limiting births? I think that is a good idea, our limited resources are slowly diminishing and we need to preserve them as long as possible, perhaps limiting the number of children a family can have via natural birth is a good way to do that.
And adoption is far a far better idea. So many abandoned children. sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:59 pm
DaMagicalPanda Ritten Yes you are perfectly right. We all need to survive and people are just puttting there primary needs first and as sad as it is in order to survive in todays world the number one thing you need is money. As for limiting births? I think that is a good idea, our limited resources are slowly diminishing and we need to preserve them as long as possible, perhaps limiting the number of children a family can have via natural birth is a good way to do that.
And adoption is far a far better idea. So many abandoned children. sad And that's one of the reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, so many children will have homes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:47 pm
Devin_Kruljac_Truessence DaMagicalPanda Ritten Yes you are perfectly right. We all need to survive and people are just puttting there primary needs first and as sad as it is in order to survive in todays world the number one thing you need is money. As for limiting births? I think that is a good idea, our limited resources are slowly diminishing and we need to preserve them as long as possible, perhaps limiting the number of children a family can have via natural birth is a good way to do that.
And adoption is far a far better idea. So many abandoned children. sad And that's one of the reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, so many children will have homes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:05 pm
rikuHEART Devin_Kruljac_Truessence And that's one of the reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, so many children will have homes.
A short explination on why Catholics are against homosexuals: (I go to a Catholic school, this is forced into my mind. stressed )
Catholics want everyone to be in God's favor. So, since they view homosexuality as a gross, unnatural, twisted sense of love, it is also seen as a sin. So they are against it in their intent to save all souls. And they change a gay man straight by using the holy spirit. etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:11 pm
DaMagicalPanda rikuHEART Devin_Kruljac_Truessence And that's one of the reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, so many children will have homes.
A short explination on why Catholics are against homosexuals: (I go to a Catholic school, this is forced into my mind. stressed )
Catholics want everyone to be in God's favor. So, since they view homosexuality as a gross, unnatural, twisted sense of love, it is also seen as a sin. So they are against it in their intent to save all souls. And they change a gay man straight by using the holy spirit. etc, etc.
Yeah, I used to go to a Catholic school. I didn't really mind learning about their religion, cuz they never forced us to believe it. They actually encourage diversity and respect for it. mrgreen I wuv that school and miss it so. But on another note, I suppose that's what they believe. If I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the Bible it mentions how God said that marriage is supposed to be a bond between a "man and a woman."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:14 pm
Ritten Devin_Kruljac_Truessence Another thing you could do also is form a protest in front of the forest that is being threatened to being cut down and in that way they can't simply bulldoze you or anyone else. I thought of that. But I believe that's illegal. You need an Assembly Permit (I think) and It's probably private proterty... I could be wrong though... But I've never heard/seen that be succesful... It usually is illegal. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Most times when a forested or unbuilt area is destroyed like that, it is indeed by real estate developers for the sake of profit. Going to meetings and staying informed on local projects can help to save places that aren't already gone but are under threat of the same fate, 'tis true. 3nodding I'm fascinated by the cognitive divide in this country between the desire to stop sprawl, save natural areas and give kids more recreational opportunities, and the laws that promote development as a tax base. When are people going to wake up and realize the harm they're doing in the name of short-term profit for the few, to the many? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:08 am
They cut wooded areas down up here all the time and build apartments or houses, IT SUCKS! You try sleeping with all that construction! But what's really bad is they get rid of the trees and like only one or two houses are lived in for about one or two years...it's really bad, now like the only wooded area that is still safe to go in is on the lutheran churches property right next door practically...we have to jump fences to get there, but it's the only place we can go that isn't concrete and asphault....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:15 pm
Hi. I haven't been on in a long time. But now that I am on vacation I can converse with you fine people once more. heart
I read both of these pages, and there are so many topics I would like to address ( okay, maybe just two).
About the forest being cut down for construction of houses: I agree with writing a letter and seeing what happens next. Maybe you can even request a spot in your neighborhood that is dedicated to a miniforest. That way you can replace trees that were cut down with new ones. It's better than nothing, if you aren't able to save the land that is being chopped down. If you have a backyard, why not plant a tree or two?
About overpopulation:
I agree completely with WebenBanu. I decided to do the whole "have only one child" thing long ago. And since I don't want my child to live alone, I think I will adopt a whole mess of kids so that there are tons of children in the house. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:37 pm
I think it's a great idea to keep a little protected area for replacing lost trees! mrgreen And no, you have not been on in a while, Hummusalia, and we missed you!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:21 pm
yeah, I know, it's wonderfull to be back! But I have homework up to my ears on most days, so I have to make a self-ban from this place....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
