Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Bullshit, in order the help you have to first stop hurting. Every step in stopping the hurting helps, and only baby steps are within the power of the masses. That's first world masses, as I said.
If you think all the volunteers to populate Mars would be bunny lovin' treehugger vegans, your dreaming. It would be science fiction freaks, depressed failures who feel they've nothing to lose, and a few curious scientists who wouldn't get along with the other two.  |
I was presenting that as the extreme: If you are saying that people's ability to care for a planet would be split between earth and mars, for a hypothetical 50% 50% scenario which would reduce the the amount of caring for earth by 50%, then I am saying that even if you took away all the people who'd otherwise provide earth with the most environmental-caring, a 100% of the people who care about the environment,
even then, earth's ecology would still benefit more from them not being on earth in the first place and thus not having a negative impact at all then from them being here and providing their "care" which is reducing their negative impact.
Obviously, it's unlikely that everyone in the green movement would be the ones to leave earth and colonize mars, in fact they might very well be more likely to stick around - in part because a lot of them care more about the aesthetics and surrounding of nature then about preserving it - but that means that you would still have people who care about the environment here on earth.
So why would they suddenly stop caring just because there is another planet? Do people care less about their countries because people in another country are doing better? Are people in Africa going "well at least the people in Sweden are enjoying healthcare so overall I wouldn't be too worried about malaria"?