Anyone know a good divorce lawyer?

[jpinpb]

Marion – I wouldn’t want to do a sperm bank either. However, for women who want children who have been unsuccessful in finding a man who they love who also want children, they have options.

I know a woman attorney who just adopted a little girl. Abadoned by father, mother a drug addict. That little girl has a new lease on life. How do you tell a child he/she came from a sperm bank. The more popular this becomes, it will have less of a stigma. Just as adopted children. Do not have the child think they were abandoned and had f/up conceivers. “You are adopted. I went out of my way to have you in my life to raise you and give you my love.”

Not what has also sadly happened and not said, “You were an accident and your mother and I are begrudgingly raising you out of obligation.”

Ideally, of course, always the perfect scenario is to have a couple in love, marry and having a family. That traditional concept is the route I’d want to go. But we are in a less than perfect world. I do not believe women should suffer not having children if that’s what they want, nor men should suffer the fate of having kids they don’t want.

Off to enjoy the day. Boy, this thread went off on a tangent. I think Dave contributed to that.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[nostradamus]

Rustico, yes your story about the celebrating party was heart warming and made me tingle all over. I hope you’re not too hungover from the party. I have similarly funny stories about my nephew for whom I am a vicarious parent at times.

jpinpb, while you have gone out to enjoy the day I have just come home from enjoying it… 8AM Surf competition at La Jolla Shores, 11AM volleyball at South Mission, a sandwich at La Torta (great little restaurant on Cass in your ‘hood) and now back at the piggy base.

I like the amount of thought you put into your posts but do not agree with your comments about love… I think that, by the laws of nature, people are here to procreate, so couples don’t “just want love”, the natural goal for all is to have children… Love is one thing nature has given us to support the goal of procreation. If a man and woman love each other they will stay together and, like Navydoc says, children of 2 parents tend to lead a better life (or at least be more successful in relationships which leads to more procreation). It’s quite logical.

[nostradamus]

Rustico, yes your story about the celebrating party was heart warming and made me tingle all over. I hope you’re not too hungover from the party. I have similarly funny stories about my nephew for whom I am a vicarious parent at times.

jpinpb, while you have gone out to enjoy the day I have just come home from enjoying it… 8AM Surf competition at La Jolla Shores, 11AM volleyball at South Mission, a sandwich at La Torta (great little restaurant on Cass in your ‘hood) and now back at the piggy base.

I like the amount of thought you put into your posts but do not agree with your comments about love… I think that, by the laws of nature, people are here to procreate, so couples don’t “just want love”, the natural goal for all is to have children… Love is one thing nature has given us to support the goal of procreation. If a man and woman love each other they will stay together and, like Navydoc says, children of 2 parents tend to lead a better life (or at least be more successful in relationships which leads to more procreation). It’s quite logical.

[nostradamus]

Rustico, yes your story about the celebrating party was heart warming and made me tingle all over. I hope you’re not too hungover from the party. I have similarly funny stories about my nephew for whom I am a vicarious parent at times.

jpinpb, while you have gone out to enjoy the day I have just come home from enjoying it… 8AM Surf competition at La Jolla Shores, 11AM volleyball at South Mission, a sandwich at La Torta (great little restaurant on Cass in your ‘hood) and now back at the piggy base.

I like the amount of thought you put into your posts but do not agree with your comments about love… I think that, by the laws of nature, people are here to procreate, so couples don’t “just want love”, the natural goal for all is to have children… Love is one thing nature has given us to support the goal of procreation. If a man and woman love each other they will stay together and, like Navydoc says, children of 2 parents tend to lead a better life (or at least be more successful in relationships which leads to more procreation). It’s quite logical.

[nostradamus]

Rustico, yes your story about the celebrating party was heart warming and made me tingle all over. I hope you’re not too hungover from the party. I have similarly funny stories about my nephew for whom I am a vicarious parent at times.

jpinpb, while you have gone out to enjoy the day I have just come home from enjoying it… 8AM Surf competition at La Jolla Shores, 11AM volleyball at South Mission, a sandwich at La Torta (great little restaurant on Cass in your ‘hood) and now back at the piggy base.

I like the amount of thought you put into your posts but do not agree with your comments about love… I think that, by the laws of nature, people are here to procreate, so couples don’t “just want love”, the natural goal for all is to have children… Love is one thing nature has given us to support the goal of procreation. If a man and woman love each other they will stay together and, like Navydoc says, children of 2 parents tend to lead a better life (or at least be more successful in relationships which leads to more procreation). It’s quite logical.

[nostradamus]

Rustico, yes your story about the celebrating party was heart warming and made me tingle all over. I hope you’re not too hungover from the party. I have similarly funny stories about my nephew for whom I am a vicarious parent at times.

jpinpb, while you have gone out to enjoy the day I have just come home from enjoying it… 8AM Surf competition at La Jolla Shores, 11AM volleyball at South Mission, a sandwich at La Torta (great little restaurant on Cass in your ‘hood) and now back at the piggy base.

I like the amount of thought you put into your posts but do not agree with your comments about love… I think that, by the laws of nature, people are here to procreate, so couples don’t “just want love”, the natural goal for all is to have children… Love is one thing nature has given us to support the goal of procreation. If a man and woman love each other they will stay together and, like Navydoc says, children of 2 parents tend to lead a better life (or at least be more successful in relationships which leads to more procreation). It’s quite logical.

[Anonymous]

It is sooo hot outside. I had to come in and hose myself off, and I’m not even in Temecula. I’m in the beach cities.

Ok, here we go.

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

“You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic.

Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

There is a time and a season for everything. Nothing on this earth is meant to last forever. When it’s time for this planet to end, then things will end. Having said that, the purpose of earth is for us to live on, if it weren’t would we be here? The earth’s atmosphere has the perfect combination of chemicals for us to live on. We can grow food here, there is oxygen for us to breath, there is water for us to drink. Without these chemical elements, we cannot survive. None of the other planets contains the combination of elements needed for us to survive. The earth has all the resources on it that we need to live.

I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. I’ve said it before, but all we need is enough. We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to. We don’t have to kill animals for sport, we don’t have to fuck up our planet. Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

I’m not advocating we go back to the stoneage, but if we lived much simpler lives, the destruction of our earth can be lessened significantly.

[Anonymous]

It is sooo hot outside. I had to come in and hose myself off, and I’m not even in Temecula. I’m in the beach cities.

Ok, here we go.

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

“You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic.

Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

There is a time and a season for everything. Nothing on this earth is meant to last forever. When it’s time for this planet to end, then things will end. Having said that, the purpose of earth is for us to live on, if it weren’t would we be here? The earth’s atmosphere has the perfect combination of chemicals for us to live on. We can grow food here, there is oxygen for us to breath, there is water for us to drink. Without these chemical elements, we cannot survive. None of the other planets contains the combination of elements needed for us to survive. The earth has all the resources on it that we need to live.

I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. I’ve said it before, but all we need is enough. We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to. We don’t have to kill animals for sport, we don’t have to fuck up our planet. Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

I’m not advocating we go back to the stoneage, but if we lived much simpler lives, the destruction of our earth can be lessened significantly.

[Anonymous]

It is sooo hot outside. I had to come in and hose myself off, and I’m not even in Temecula. I’m in the beach cities.

Ok, here we go.

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

“You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic.

Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

There is a time and a season for everything. Nothing on this earth is meant to last forever. When it’s time for this planet to end, then things will end. Having said that, the purpose of earth is for us to live on, if it weren’t would we be here? The earth’s atmosphere has the perfect combination of chemicals for us to live on. We can grow food here, there is oxygen for us to breath, there is water for us to drink. Without these chemical elements, we cannot survive. None of the other planets contains the combination of elements needed for us to survive. The earth has all the resources on it that we need to live.

I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. I’ve said it before, but all we need is enough. We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to. We don’t have to kill animals for sport, we don’t have to fuck up our planet. Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

I’m not advocating we go back to the stoneage, but if we lived much simpler lives, the destruction of our earth can be lessened significantly.

[Anonymous]

It is sooo hot outside. I had to come in and hose myself off, and I’m not even in Temecula. I’m in the beach cities.

Ok, here we go.

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

“You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic.

Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

There is a time and a season for everything. Nothing on this earth is meant to last forever. When it’s time for this planet to end, then things will end. Having said that, the purpose of earth is for us to live on, if it weren’t would we be here? The earth’s atmosphere has the perfect combination of chemicals for us to live on. We can grow food here, there is oxygen for us to breath, there is water for us to drink. Without these chemical elements, we cannot survive. None of the other planets contains the combination of elements needed for us to survive. The earth has all the resources on it that we need to live.

I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. I’ve said it before, but all we need is enough. We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to. We don’t have to kill animals for sport, we don’t have to fuck up our planet. Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

I’m not advocating we go back to the stoneage, but if we lived much simpler lives, the destruction of our earth can be lessened significantly.

[Author]

Posts