Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
Exactly. That's my point. I think some of the arguments against environmentalists and writing them off as 'tree huggers' are incredibly short sighted, misinformed, and not even true to the self of the people making them.
An incident like this proves that. People like trees. Trees are important. And the "dirty hippie-tree hugging' view of environmentalists is incorrect. You don't need to be a stinky hippie to see the value in trees and the environment in general and arguments going directly to that image when arguing environmental issues doesn't help the conversation. It's a cop out, often because the person using the 'tree hugger' terminology can't make a real point.
|
I think we are on entirely different pages.
I think you can have a balance. You
have to have a balance if you want iPhones, Cars, 3200 square foot houses etc. I am not a tree hugger, and I also don't think we should burn down Banff National Park and make it a giant parking lot.
If environmentalists want to be true to their mission, then they have to give up every single modern nicety and live in the woods using nothing but the land and their wits to survive. Anything less and they are hypocrites.
I am just upset some nice old trees on my street, and around the city got destroyed, and it will take decades for some of these communities to recover their canopies. I think you read way too much into my comment.