Hmmm, this discussion is quite interesting.
I am myself an environmental engineer, studying international development, but what does that mean anyway…
…well in the end, I believe, and I think it is a question of non-religious-organisational believe, because no one can understand such a complex system as society or nature, in a whole, so science is just a tiny but good try to understand it, so we can work with it, but it is no end-solution, or final answer to any of those questions.
Never the less I love logic, thus I know that I will never achieve absolute wisdom, thus I must always look around me and try to Co-exist with as many entities as possible, no matter if you call it nature, bees, Germans, Chinese, Muslim or Aliens, it doesn’t matter who. Because if I don’t support diversity, I will one day become intolerant, and thus venerable to error, because I don’t see the whole spectrum of reality anymore.
Nature is the best example, that this world is too complex, to fully grasp.
But what I stand for (also as engineer) is trying my best, to Co-exist, with as many other entities as possible, as long my own live is not limited (at which point I am limited, is each ones personal decision). Because that is the same question as environmental protection,… which life-form has more rights?
I think no life-form has any rights. So because, no one has any rights, we become equal in the fact, that we don’t have any rights, thus we have to be treated equally.
So there is no difference, between you and me, animal and human, etc., we all do not have any rights, but we would have equal rights, thus we have all the equal rights to live (namely none, but equal).

As George Carlin put it very nice in that video, nature produced humanity.
So in the moment, when live comes into existence, it has no rights at all, because no one said there are laws (at least if you don’t believe in some sort of god).
But as I said, all other life forms have none too, so they have to be treated equally… and if nature, or humanity doesn’t want any more or any humans at all, nature or humanity should have prevented humanity to reproduce any more of its kind, in the first place.

PS: Great article & Blogs, I love ground shaking critics, even if they are sometimes too critic, but I like people more who are over critic, than fanatics and ignorant people!
But I have to agree with you and George Carlin, many of the environmentalists are self righteous and hate humanity, but humanity is a product of nature, of this universe for that matter.
Keep the great work up; fill the world with realistic critic.

And thanks for your comment on my Blog, and for raising my attention on your topics.
Have a nice day,
Nsae

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

@Gubbi
It’s not undermining human potential, but exactly estimating it, and the nuclear technology you are talking of is the exact example of it. Nature is to be exploited otherwise human can’t survive.
Importance of nuclear reactors and useless gibberish of Indian communists against it is well known.
The cycle which you are talking about is inadvertent reality But CO2 is hazardous so is CO, That won’t make you stop using gas will it?
Show me one environmentalist who says this kind of ****. And if there are such, they are a joke.
Already shown, read again. Environmentalism is no better than a rude joke.
If spilling tons of liters of oil has mass destructed ocean habitats, why is it a crime to try clean it?
The nature will clean itself? How? and in how many years? Is there anything that can be done to make this process quick? This is what environmentalists try thinking along with ways of stopping oil spillage.

That is not the work of environmentalist that is the work of the oil company’s team of engineers, technologists, biophysicists and mineralogists, after all its company’s loss and hazard of their health.
It is certainly a crime if in Indian ocean ONGC spills oil and Indian citizens hard earned money is wasted upon clearing it. (Obviously the tries will be fatal).plus, if you are interested in saving the fishes, invest your money, you have no right to use the citizens money for that, if you do its exploitation and hence a crime.

You talk of DODO, how much money has been wasted upon tigers and chinkara’s? and how many of them are left? Will you safeguard them? Do invest your money, why forcing others?
1 cave man building a hut is not the same as 6 billion people building huts and other things. These require resources, which are limited and not infinitely available.

So you want people die in hard cold and killing hot winds on roads of North India Kashmir, Ladakh, Uttaranchal, UP, Bihar so that you may safeguard some of your funny ideas of saving some species?

What difference does it make when it comes to right to live? Whether it is human or non-human.
Rational faculty, Mind, cannot you understand that? Your chinkaras or stray dogs and stray cows won’t become naxalites. The poor homeless hungry people surely will.
A human must not cause harm to animals because they can feel pain and compassion is a virtuous concept, but it cannot be a basis of any moral or constitutional right. We cannot stop medical researchers from experimenting on animals on regards of any moral or legitimate right. We cannot and should not say that it will be morally illegal to experiment on an animal even though it may result in a cure of a deadly disease of human kind.
You can surely have rights, your property right, so possess the animals you want to safeguard, you can’t force others to give you money for that as a compulsion. If someone kills your animal, your property, than sure you can sue his ***.

by the way did you never use a mosquito killing coil? What about DDT? Did you never killed a house bee? What right of living you are talking of, hypocrisy? If you want to provide safety for some animal, make it your property and take care of it. No one will harm it, and if someone harms your property sue his ***. You can’t force people paying their hard earned money for safety of some chinkara, rabbit’s lion’s tigers while thousands in India commits suicide for the lack of shelter and food.
earth + plastic is fine from earth’s point of view, but not so much from human point of view if we want fertile soil to grow more trees and plants.

Grow then, who is stopping you? Earn land and grow trees. A homeless will earn land for making a house. Why are you worrying so much for future when you even won’t be living while ignoring the present human kind which is living and suffering?
But you should certainly let them continue with their definitions of good living, knowledge, technological advancement and essence of life.
And when did I say that kill them or ban them or do this or that?
But they waste my hard earned money as I am forced to pay taxes, and that is crime.
About George Carlin, he is a satirical political commenter. And his every point of assertion is perfect.
Any rational person will reject Environmentalism rather than rejecting DDT.

“The demand to ‘restrict’ technology is the demand to restrict man’s mind. It is nature—i.e., reality—that makes both these goals impossible to achieve. Technology can be destroyed, and the mind can be paralyzed, but neither can be restricted. Whether and whenever such restrictions are attempted … the mind … withers away.” (AR)

good work man….. :)

Do they really believe that human as whole is any comparable force against nature?

So who is trying to undermine human capabilities here? Humans, who have produced weapons which can destroy earth over and over, and wipe out any life form that exists.

The concern about environment is basic common sense. And if humans value their own quality of life and want to sustain their habitat they need to understand universal laws and use them intelligently.

Lets see how the current “linear” system works:
1. Mine something / cut trees.
2. Use it as raw materials to produce goods.
3. Release unusable / hazardous byproducts.

Any reasonable person can understand that such a linear system can’t continue forever. Only cyclical systems or a linear system with life span greater than that of earth itself can work.

That is, man should be banned from using nature for his own ends. If nature has its own intrinsic value, then any try to change the environment is immoral.

Show me one environmentalist who says this kind of ****. And if there are such, they are a joke.

If spilling tons of liters of oil has mass destructed ocean habitats, why is it a crime to try clean it?
The nature will clean itself? How? and in how many years? Is there anything that can be done to make this process quick? This is what environmentalists try thinking along with ways of stopping oil spillage.

If Dodo became extinct “because of human hunting”, why is it ridiculous to stop species from getting extinct because of similar activities. I’m sure people would have loved to have Dodos for breakfast if it had lasted.

1 cave man building a hut is not the same as 6 billion people building huts and other things. These require resources, which are limited and not infinitely available.

earth + plastic is fine from earth’s point of view, but not so much from human point of view if we want fertile soil to grow more trees and plants.

He has no duty to sacrifice his life or pleasure or affluence for the needs of others and certainly not for the non-human.

What difference does it make when it comes to right to live? Whether it is human or non-human.

We must not let these environmentalists with disastrous motives against human kind to distract us from developing, progressing and gaining further pleasure, knowledge, technological advancement and essence of life.

But you should certainly let them continue with their definitions of good living, knowledge, technological advancement and essence of life.

BTW, the video you have put is that of George Carlin, a comedian. It was hilarious and his only basis for assertions is that nature is a part of a greater wisdom than what humans can grasp.