Ask yourself what aspects and nuances of your “old hippy liberal” view of the world are actually correct

>”Once again, gene, as much as I hate it, am unsubscribing yet again.”

All the classics here: complain about other people who don’t agree with you, threaten to leave the list because people don’t agree with you, and use “polite society” as the hammer to try to beat Gene into censoring what you don’t want to see. This is the same song and dance others have performed over the years and is not going to change anything.

Someone else challenging the ideology that has eventually turned into your entire sense of self-identity is a healthy thing. My opinions have changed many times over the years because I recognize the uncomfortable feeling as a sign of a weakness in what I currently believe. Try asking yourself if certain aspects and nuances of your “old hippy liberal” view of the entire world around you are actually correct.

Example may help, even if they are imperfect.

Many species make their homes in the trees. Humans cut down trees. These two independent facts seem to support the idea that humans generally destroy the habitats of animals. Proceeding from these two assumptions, we’ve made a third assumption that sounds like it makes sense despite the fact that it is already not logically sound (ask the question, “are the trees being cut always the same trees that habitats are being made in?”) From that poor logic we could then also assume that humans will eventually kill all the animals that live in the trees because humans are slowly destroying that habitat. The illogical snowball picks up speed and mass as it flies down the slippery slope.

Now, if you think that humans are slowly and indirectly killing all the animals on the basis of the first two facts and you feel strongly that humans should stop cutting down trees BECAUSE of those facts, the emotional effect of that strong opinion will cause you to become angry at ANYONE who makes a statement that even indirectly challenges that opinion…even though you hold an opinion that is based on bad logic, probably combined with other speculative and/or anecdotal “evidence” from other people who also formed that opinion somehow and now have a strong emotional need to hang on to that opinion. The bad opinion eventually becomes part of your self-identity, so a challenge to that opinion becomes an assault on the foundation of your mental, moral, ethical, and spiritual foundations.

What if you discover that humans clearing out old growth forests for timber and pulp prevents wildfires? Certainly a wildfire will kill a lot more animals than chopping down a thousand old trees, not to mention the threat they would post to any nearby human lives. What about the fact that humans plant new trees to replace the old trees they chop down, thereby giving the forest newer, stronger trees than it had before? Or that the lack of old trees allows sunlight onto the forest floor where there was none, opening the area for growth of natural berries and wildflowers, feeding the animals on the ground and helping bees survive and thrive?

How about vegans? They fail to consider that more animals are murdered in farming combines that harvest their soybeans and carrots than are killed in bringing up cows and chickens to feed people. Even if they ignore the fact that that vegans could end up with dementia (myelin sheath breakdown due to prolonged B-12 deficiency, you know) without artificial vitamin supplements, the point is that the hardcore avoidance of animal products necessitates heavier consumption of products that kill more animals than what they’re avoiding so that animals don’t get killed.

Much ignorance. Such irony. I’m saving tons of animals by eating cheese and eggs. Wow.

If you don’t let your opinions become your ideology, these things would make you take a second look at your opinions and give you a new outlook on the complex relationships between humans and nature.

If your sense of self is built upon your opinions, you’ll irrationally and adamantly argue against them no matter how true they might be. “People who say these things are just supporting the big evil corporations that want to murder all the animals and trees for their own greedy evil wallets,” perhaps…that does seem to be a popular (yet illogical and baseless) opinion in this county.

Which one of these two types of people do you want to be? While you decide, I’ll have some more cheese.

– Cryptik