Since there are animal liberalist, and human right liberalist, and enviromental liberalist?
Why and how can we save the earth, if no one cares about the earth?
probable Solution?
IF we own property most of the people would take care of it, but who owns the earth? Why can’t he take care of it?
Don’t worry about the earth, it can and will take care of itself. Humanity might just end up on the list of extinct species as it does so, but that’s neither here nor there to the earth.
Of course if humanity wants to survive… it might be a good idea to take care of the earth.
Dan
There have been attempts to paint the Earth as a living thing. I once loosely knew a guy that belonged to an Earth Mother (I think her name is Gea) cult. That was a fad back in the 90s.
Clearly, it never caught on.
That would be Gaia … and, no, I’ve never been a member.
Yes.
We are all starting to see the earth’s cleansing process right now.
I guess my name somehow obligates me to this thread. I’m pretty tired of the whole “gaia love” jargon.
Until there is evidence of a nervous system running thoughout the planet, and a membrane which centralizes this nervous system around the planet- then no the earth does not feel pain.
As for the questions which do not relate to the thread’s title- organizations such as “Gaia Liberation Front” are probably accomplishing something in that we need to consider some are willing to break the law, destroy, kill, and die in regards to the blatant environmental degradation. I’m not.
If, as opposed to a thermos, drinking coffee from disposable styrofoam cups every day seems ridiculously inefficient to you- then learn from the idiocy. But if you need to think that a giant groaning female is underneath you when you step on grass in order to convince yourself of this- maybe you’re lost in a circle of ignorance.
Seriously, that’s not to be bitter. I actually think a lot of these things are funny. And I’m all for environmentalism. I’m just reminded of when I took things too far.
until we find a membrane or nervous system, we cannot be certain that the earth can feel suffering?
Once we do , it will be too late.
I don’t know….my head says “No†but….but my heart says “Yes, yes!â€
Exactly in my pschology thread.
Your heart wants you do be nice and do justice, your head says take pride, and be a man, there is no such thing as God, treat yourself. 
Actually; I correct myself, Dan. I automatically asked myself if the Earth feels pain. But this is a different question as to wheather it feels suffering. In answer, no I suppose you don’t really need a nervous system in order to empathize with suffering somehow.
I guess my tack is that we shouldn’t have to somehow convince ourselves that there’s a central big entity that we’re abusing in order to make ourselves environmentally concsious. For example: If I shoot a bunch of people in a school, it should be sufficient that I take into account the suffering of those people as a factor in my morality. I shouldn’t need to ask myself if there’s also a sort of “multi-people person” in between them that I really hurt and takes it really personal when anyone else gets injured by a sort of psychic connection.
Likewise: Even if there isn’t a single entity I can finger as the victim for the loss of environmental degradation, it should be sufficient that I can still find a wide range of victims. Unfortunately, human empathy generally needs this kind of direct face in order to feel more concsience. If a friend of mine faces violence, I feel it and want to do something about it. But if I hear statistics of that violence, somehow I become less concerned about it and I take less notice of what I do to contribute to those statistics.
Perhaps people lack self-control over environmental destruction mainly because its victimization is much more statistical than social. You might stake a shooting victim’s death directly on the gun fired and the person pulling the trigger. It’s not so easy to blame it on deforestation. But it does have deadly influence.
I think the future of our survival depends on the very close call we will be facing in growing to govern ourselves to take into account the statistical factors rather than primitively centered around our closely knit social group (That’s not so bad, though. Enough families can’t even achieve that).
I am pleased to see that criminal law is growing more into the concept that the crime must generally be against society at large, irregardless of wheather we use one toe-tag for the victim. Perhaps we will become more of environmentalists if our dominating ethics become more visceral than utilitarian. It becomes less of a matter: “Did you or did you not do x” and instead it is the nature by which you’ve lived out your life. The very little factors of your daily habits would contribute to your criminality just as the clearly defined boundaries you would break. Maybe then it really will be in your best interest to bike to work a little more. And maybe it’ll be your boss’s best interest to strive toward a somewhat statistically benevolent company.
In the mean-time we should just be frugal and productive.