I'm curious as to why you would suggest that human life is not particularly valuable, but that non-sentient life and non-living things (i.e. the environment) is?Ok, let's just kill all people who don't care about the environment. Then we have a good mix of people left, particularly wankers. It's all lose, lose, lose.
exactly.But then you have the people who go around pretending they know what they're talking about?
I would, but there are the wah wah conspiracy people who view those who believe in climate change as unintelligent and gullible.certainly not
but wouldn't you call the average person who denies the significance of climate change unintelligent?
Well then killing people is harming the environment since people are part of the environment.The environment IS life.
Help what?Killing people won't throw off the balance and carbon/nitrogen cycles in nature, there are far too many of us and we are the ones disturbing these fundamental patterns of life. If anything, it will help. Once the patterns are disturbed to a certain extent, it is rather irreversible.
Lol at the people who don't understand carbon cycles and go on rants about how then we must be helping.
Not really. But I don't think that's very relevant because (assuming AGW = real) it's already been concluded that 'any means necessary' is not, uh, necessary.okay cool, but do you think that ANY means justify saving the environment?
Just. Just leave.Humans should analyse their activities during past years that have caused the most disastrous part of global warming. This way we can eliminate the immediate and common reasons of GW.