Why don't environmentalists understand that self-sacrifice is immoral?
Answer:
self-sacrife is not "immoral" sacrife is giving something up, not tradeing for a lesser good, and if you want to go with your defenition how is trading an SUV (greater vallue) for a small fuel efficient car (lesser vallue) imoral? they may like the SUV better so it is a sacrifice for them, but it is in the best intrest of the hole for them to drive a fuel effiecent car
(just to clarify I am not against SUVs I was just makeing a point)
Websters Online: Sacrifice: something given up or lost.
I understand plenty, including the proper definition of the word. I'm an environmentalist, I'm willing to sacrifice -- and do, obligingly -- so that others may benefit. That includes my children, grandchildren, my friends, their children, their grandchildren, and you. You don't have to understand, you don't have to appreciate. If you prefer to denigrate to build yourself up, be my guest.
Hey, ... I cant agree with you, ..Sacrifice : Some thing given up or lost. The self sacrifice is immoral or moral depend on person, society, culture, the issue that we handle etc, So how can we say that environmentalists does not understand it ? Some times you may confused with the terminology I think !!
BETTER SACRIFICE SOMEBODY ELSE
and for a cause
Overpopulation is the primary cause of all the world problems .
Polution,desertification,water shortage ,food shortage ,deforrestation,loss of animal habitat ,you name it
People use and need land,so more and more is being changed to accomodate human growth and devellopment,the necessary flora ,which permits life as we know it, is disappearing.
Eco-systems are being exchanged for desserts , concrete or roads.
An environmentally destructive wave is in motion, caused by expanding populations,and expanding agriculture
An increase in desserts definately affects the global climate and is for a large part responsible for the climate change we are experiencing now
World population has doubled in the last 50 years exceeding the growth of 4 million years (since we became homo sapiens).
To satisfy the growing demand farmers are cultivating unstable lands , too steep or dry to be sustainable.
Mono cultures ,aided by chemicals Exhaust and pollutes the soil .
Adding to this the effects of overgrazing has resulted in large scale desertification.
Each year billions of tons of topsoil are blown or washed away by storms.
Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities. The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.
Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.
This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.
Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million
In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .
SOLUTIONS
At a meeting in Kopenhagen in 1998 it was suggested ,by an American Statesman ,to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved
Population control in the past and present
War (past .present and future)
Natures way disease(today,past and future)
Manufactured disease(suspected today)
cures that kill(suspected today)
Poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)
making children infertile or gay,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)
Birth control,(in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )
Education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )
laws that limit childbirth per family(China
Maybe we should bring back human sacrifice ,the gods would be over the moon and we could fertilize some of the millions of hectares that modern agriculture has destroyed with its chemicals.
If we only sacrificed polutors or Enemies of the planet ,many people would end up behaving more respectfully about Nature and we would have a really could cure for polution.
Pressure would be lifted of the coming potable water shortage and Food production.
And with all the full moons we got during the year ,it would have a marked effect on the population growth .
only traitors or the enemies of the Planet could object to that.
lol
dont forget .
i said lol
Sacrificing yourself self implies self destruction. "Environmentalists" are not suggesting that at all. I think what you are trying to say is that environmentalists are encouraging individuals to give up personal habits and desires to allow for sustained use of the earths natural resources. To me, that is a moral obligation.
Most people don't follow Ayn Rand.
And those who genuinely do don't twist her philosophy the way you do. Even assuming that being environmentally responsible would leave one less well off--demonstrably not the case, that is only part of the equation.
The other half fake "objectivists" conveniently ignore is that you DO NOT have the right to shift the cost of your actions onto others. Here, for example, the oil companies--or users--are morally liable for all ccosts of their actions--including the cost of cleaning up or preventing any pollution they cause. And paying those costs is NOT a sacrifice--except to people on the moral level of a James Taggert.
Or to put it more simply: if you make a mess on your property, that is your business. But if your mess spills over ontomy property, I have evry right to demand that you pay the cost in YOUR timeor money--to clean it up. That is not asking you to sacrifice yourself--it is expecting you to accept responsibility for your actions.
In the bible it says there is no greater love than giving your life for your fellow man. I take this as literally giving up your life for someone else . And figuratively, devoting your life to making the world a better place for everyone. If self sacrifice was immoral, then Mother Teresa would be on the moral level of Hitler, and that is just ridiculous!
HELLO !
Sacrifice (from a Middle English verb meaning "to make sacred", from Old French, from Latin sacrificium: sacer, sacred; sacred + facere, to make) is commonly known as the practice of offering food, or the lives of animals or people to the gods, as an act of propitiation or worship. The term is also used metaphorically to describe selfless good deeds for others, or a short term loss in return for a greater gain (such as in a game of chess).
The practice of sacrifice is found in the oldest human records, and the archaeological record finds corpses, both animal and human, that show marks of having been sacrificed and have been dated to long before any records. Sacrifices are a common theme in most religions, though the frequency of animal, and especially human, sacrifices has fallen in recent millennia and is rare today.
Well I don't get why it's immoral, value is relative in the end.
But that aside, I don't see who's asking you to sacrifice, people are just asking you to make small changes that add up to a big impact. Anyone asking you to do anything drastic is a moron, everyone knows you can't push people too far too fast, it has to be gradual change.
That's what I did anyways, small changes. I haven't sacrificed anything, or traded anything in value. I suggest you not listen to quacks.
Do your part, make small changes, that's all that's needed.
Oh and most importantly, vote!
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: