Perhaps this isn't what you meant, but isn't presuming freedom of choice is a threat to the survival of the human species just a little too knee-jerk reactionary, that would be approaching insanity? And isn't it concerning that in simply asking for the freedom of choice to be protected using a little intelligence and common sense, we've immediately jumped to the fate of the species (planet) as the extreme opposite of that request? Isn't that just the least bit alarming? Anyone? Bueller?
No, that's not what I meant, but I can see how it could be taken that way. I meant that freedom of choice has logical limits. If I had meant what you mentioned above, then yes, absolutely that would be concerning, and questionably insane. What I'm saying is that eventually there has to be a point where the health of the community out-weighs someone's right to drive a Hummer in the city. I am certainly not questioning the right of people to choose to be skeptical of the environmental propaganha, nor to demand rationalism as you do.
Also - I tend strongly towards hyperbole, it's a major flaw that I blame on having to deal constantly with people who seem to only understand arguments when given extreme examples. I should know better than that on a forum discussing fine literature.
Perhaps what you meant to discuss is that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the rights of society (and by extension, nations and species) at large? In that, I can hold no argument against you. However, I STRONGLY question the logic (emotion?) of some people who say freedom of choice is somehow the enemy of our survival. THAT is dangerous thinking, just waiting to blossom into something bad. Either way, I still lament the herd being emotionally manipulated.
Agreed, and yes the balance is what I meant. Freedom of choice goes beyond a simple benifit to the human race, it is more or less the entire point of the human race (from a human point of view of course, from an outside view there is no point to the human race whatsoever obviously). So, I guess academically it is true that freedom of choice is dangerous to humanity (we can choose to push the button), but that is only in extreme cases and the benifits of choice far outweigh the dangers.
Of course, this is likely all academic anyway. After all, the ideology of environmentalism has come. It cannot be stopped now and in a sense, nor should it. However, whether I support environmentalism with temperance (which I do) or I'm a heathen blasphemer to be burned by the trendy fire of environmental righteousness (which I'm not), wouldn't you agree that my desire for a rational, informed vote is already marginalized to the point that I can do little harm? Perhaps the best I can hope for is a call to reason
. Living in Toronto, it sure feels like it sometimes
Trust me, I'm definitely with you when it comes to insisting that people look at this issue with reason rather than emotion. I just find myself concerned with the extremes people seem to gravitate to whenever someone starts disputing any element of environmentalism (I'm not entirely innocent of this myself) - we see people (mainly, there are middle of the road people as well who have left their brains on) who demonize any one carrying a plastic bag, and we see people calling everyone making an effort to pollute less tree-huggers. I'm probably biased largely because of my location - out here you're a red neck or you're a lousy anti-humanity treehugger. People are very rarely reasonable out here, which has obviously contributed to me erring on the side of just getting the herd to do the right thing, wheras you live in a more liberal place and are probably experiencing the exact opposite of what I am, and are more concerned with getting the herd to wake up (which is probably never going to happen out where I live).
So, I guess it has to be taken into consideration that I am not really exposed to this environmental-extremism that everyone else seems to be, I am mainly exposed to the rightwing reaction to perceived