Environmentalism, right or wrong? Options

[Kontroll]

Now, when I say environmentalism, I'm dealing with the rainforest and what not. How do you guys feel about it? What's your stance on this topic?

If there has already been a thread about this, then whatever.

[sadolakced acid]

why did they have to be reintroduced?

because they were removed.

straight from wikipedia:

"Starting in 1918, in an effort to protect elk populations, the Director of the Park Service ordered “extermination of mountain lions and other predatory animals” in Yellowstone. Park Service hunters carried out these orders and by 1926 they had killed 122 wolves. By this time wolves were all but eliminated from Yellowstone."

the point of this is that, if they were wrong about the wolves, couldn't they be wrong about other environmental issues?
and on forest fire:

"Ecologists argued that fire is part of the Yellowstone ecosystem, and that not allowing the fires to run their course (as has been the practice in the past) will result in a choked, sick, and decaying forest. In fact, relatively few megafauna in the park were killed by the fires; and since the blaze, many saplings have sprung up on their own, old vistas are viewable once again, and many previously unknown archaeological and geological sites of interest were found and cataloged by scientists. The National Park Service now has a policy of lighting smaller, controlled "prescribed fires" to prevent another dangerous buildup of flammable materials."

also from the wikipedia on yellowstone.

so, smokey the bear is destorying the enviroment.



sure, carbon dioxide is bad. but what if the amount we're producing is more or less equal to what was produced by animal life before we killed a bunch of animals? The point is- we don't know.

we don't know that our 'environmentalism' is helping. we dont' even know if we're hurting the environment.

scientists can't even predict weather a week from now. how do they predict weather 10 years from now? how do they say "if we don't pass kyoto, global tempuratures will be 5 degrees higher" or something like that?

[*mipadi*]

why did they have to be reintroduced?

because they were removed.

straight from wikipedia:

"Starting in 1918, in an effort to protect elk populations, the Director of the Park Service ordered “extermination of mountain lions and other predatory animals” in Yellowstone. Park Service hunters carried out these orders and by 1926 they had killed 122 wolves. By this time wolves were all but eliminated from Yellowstone."

How is that tied to environmentalism? I have a feeling it was merely to get rid of pests, not due to any attempt at helping the environment.

the point of this is that, if they were wrong about the wolves, couldn't they be wrong about other environmental issues?
and on forest fire:

"Ecologists argued that fire is part of the Yellowstone ecosystem, and that not allowing the fires to run their course (as has been the practice in the past) will result in a choked, sick, and decaying forest. In fact, relatively few megafauna in the park were killed by the fires; and since the blaze, many saplings have sprung up on their own, old vistas are viewable once again, and many previously unknown archaeological and geological sites of interest were found and cataloged by scientists. The National Park Service now has a policy of lighting smaller, controlled "prescribed fires" to prevent another dangerous buildup of flammable materials."

Yes, natural fires are a good thing. Point has been established. How does this tie into, say, pollution controls? The issue with your thinking is that you are taking specific points and trying to tie it to environmentalism as a whole.

sure, carbon dioxide is bad. but what if the amount we're producing is more or less equal to what was produced by animal life before we killed a bunch of animals? The point is- we don't know.

we don't know that our 'environmentalism' is helping. we dont' even know if we're hurting the environment.

scientists can't even predict weather a week from now. how do they predict weather 10 years from now? how do they say "if we don't pass kyoto, global tempuratures will be 5 degrees higher" or something like that?

I hardly think we are producing less carbon dioxide than before. A vague understanding of internal combustion answers that point. I also doubt that attempts to keep water and air clean are really hindering the environment in any way. How is having clean water and air a bad thing?