In some ways, an informative article. However, way too much clever use of bullshit to support a preconceived opinion. The dead give-away:
"But then, a lot of human activity—maybe most—is not good for the earth."
By accident the author appears to have revealed that his position is that a good earth is one with limited or no humans. I have several questions for Mr. Sauer: What form of genocide does he favor for the existing human population in order to accomplish his belief? Has he considered forming a National Ecologist Party to promote his beliefs and would he consider using a modified green swastika to rally his believers? Will his human reduction camps be ecologically correct? (Whatever that might be?)
If my comment seems excessively acidic, consider the tremendous potential for human on human violence behind his words.
On North Dakota: The Rise of an American Petrostate
In some ways, an informative article. However, way too much clever use of bullshit to support a preconceived opinion. The dead give-away:
"But then, a lot of human activity—maybe most—is not good for the earth."
By accident the author appears to have revealed that his position is that a good earth is one with limited or no humans. I have several questions for Mr. Sauer: What form of genocide does he favor for the existing human population in order to accomplish his belief? Has he considered forming a National Ecologist Party to promote his beliefs and would he consider using a modified green swastika to rally his believers? Will his human reduction camps be ecologically correct? (Whatever that might be?)
If my comment seems excessively acidic, consider the tremendous potential for human on human violence behind his words.