Man....

The problem is, most people, even people who agree we are destroying the planet, are not willing to give up their creature comforts (they just want everyone else to). Think about the computers we use to connect on this forum. Think of the materials that went into it, the mining of the metals, the transportation of those materials, the factories, distributing the product, the electricity to power the device....etc. All those things have an environmental cost. Think about your house, your phone, your car, your vacations, your food (having access to fresh vegetables all year round for example).

The only way for us to live and not destroy the planet is to basic go back to living like cavemen/cavewomen and where our population didn't grow unchecked. Our species would need a mortality rate like any other animal on this planet.

I think it comes down to the fact that man is by nature selfish. It's far easier to tell other people what they should be doing instead of doing it yourself, Hollywood is full of such individuals. Man also gets offended and aggressive when confronted with facts that are not to his approval. Man finds changing his nature and habits harder than sending a rocket to the moon. All of which points to the conclusion that man will carry on his destructive ways until nothing is left and it's all too late.

Capitalism is here to stay I'm afraid as the vast majority of the human race don't know how to function any other way now, they need a new car, they need a big house, designer clothes, latest gadgets etc etc etc and if the natural world has to pay the price them so be it. They are blind to the fact that the whole planet is being manipulated to benefit a few greedy, corrupt individuals who can never have enough money or power. So in light of this I will carry on collecting while I can ignoring the shouts of the loony eco warriors who achieve nothing in particular for all their noise because I don't think there will be much around when my grandson is my age.

At the moment the "in thing" with western governments is to get everyone driving electric cars which in theory seems to be a good thing. However as usual in their warped way of thinking their ONLY interest is to screw more money from the poor sods who have to put up with their lunacy. It is a well know fact that a car produces more pollution in it's manufacture than throughout it's whole working life, electric cars more so, therefore by doing what I do, running an older car, maintaining it well by servicing it regularly is actually doing more to save planet earth than any fancy, boring electric or hybrid monstrosity with its range of 50 miles and I don't need a mechanic to work on it as it's so simple I can do it myself. They also forget to mention where the power is going to come from to power all these new, shiny and clean vehicles, how our transport system all diesel powered, is going to cope and the best thing that they can come up with is once again to tax is more, the air will be just as polluted but they will get richer in the process.

Yes, he does, he always was, I just wish that these greedy lords would sometimes listen.

I did write to read into it what you will - and you did - but I did not anticipate that someone would take it straight to a "divine" discussion. Curious, why did you assume it had something to do with a god(s)? Also, why, after first thinking of divinity, did you then decide the speculative interpretation was to be dismissed? Don't get me wrong, I dismissed it as BS too.

I understand English meanings can be varied and this perhaps partially explains why my people had so many difficulties with Europeans as a whole.

This helps confirm the reasoning I have that no past time period will be acceptable as people have never been tolerant of cultures, beliefs, or solutions to problems. ERGO, if you think people are the cause of all problems and cannot solve them, you are a hypocrite if you do not cease to be. If you think people can ultimately (Star Trek) come together even in the face of destruction, you will take some damn responsibility to do what you can toward that goal.

This is the basis - build on that. Or don't and George Carlin will be right "The Earth will just shake us off like a bad case of fleas."

We are told to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Start restoring - How many here know how to do that?

You have asked for a bit by bit dissection. Ok - I'm not sure you will listen/read it but here goes:

1: Childish rants and insults? Please do enlighten and clarify (to) everybody as to where you found them. I added 'to' in order to correct the typographical error in case someone misunderstood what you meant.
A: I was demonstrating (as I stated in what I wrote) what a childish rant looks like. Continuing to bring up "God" when one was not indicated and was clearly counter stated to not be a part of my discussion is a childish rant. To wit, The video of Sir David Attenborough even has him making a direct statement clearly defining a belief the Garden of Eden no longer exists but by the definition of his statement means he thought it once did. (I understood his theatrical license to reach those at the conference and did not assign that to be a belief of his). Now that the existence of a multi post rant has been addressed I will proceed to the 2nd part of your first question -
B: Insults. This is rather easy to elucidate for you. The following three points explain that "squealing hocus pocus BS" are insults.
a. "Probably due to some divine BS"- IF BS is an abbreviation for excrement THEN you stated the post was equal to animal excrement. By assuming - again, the validity of divinity is solely on you- you quickly and incorrectly insulted.
b. "and so was leading towards some divine hocus pocus thing intent." You directly by definition wrote that I was leading you to Hocus Pocus a term with a universally negative connotation.
c. "and so do feel real good about squealing about this subject." A difficult one to decipher because the statement was a long run-on. Either you did not identify me and so left the end part relate to yourself as the subject. Or you were referring to me but left that out. Either way, you writing that you were squealing about divinity or that you thought I was going to squeal about divinity (which I did not even bring up except to say that I did not mean divinity). Squealing is a derogatory term connotating a very negative porcine image in several ways.

2. What is "Translator program?"
A. A translator program is computer software that converts a language into one the user of said program desires. Usually in the context of understanding. I made an assumption that is certainly possible that is wrong. Given the following data points: In Sweden, with frequent edits, with sentence run-ons, with frequent and incorrect assumptions I could only come up with one of three things: 1. English is not well understood by you. 2. You have a disability either physical or mental causing difficulty in understanding English. or 3. You are very immature in understanding the meanings of English words used in this thread. I chose to go with the first one. If it was #2 or #3, or a different reason altogether, let me know.

3. What is "There is no reason for you to not end yourself?". What is "Explain to me the benefit to the natural world for you to continue living". What is "you are a hypocrite if you do not end yourself unless you are part of the solution." another query with the same answer "enlighten everybody what your riddles is all about, as I am not getting into the deeper psychoanalytic meaning of why I am still alive and what may be my purpose on earth"

A. See previous post. I used the smallest words I could to explain it to you. I am not able to make it more simple. I will try one more time and if you can't grasp the logic this time, then you will not be able.
I state for object of discussion: Homo sapiens is a problem by way of being destructive to the natural world even though Homo sapiens and technology ARE natural. I also state that other past creatures albeit without technology, have dramatically changed the world and not necessarily for the "better." Therefore, if Homo sapiens either in part or whole hold that Homo sapiens are %100 the problem then logically, it is reasonable to conjecture that it would be better to end ones own life. The species is in no danger of having enough individuals. Unless you are not actively solving the problem, what use are you to the world? Furthermore, it is then seemingly hypocritical for one to not end his or her life for the betterment of the future generations and planet. Your purpose was not purported.

4. "What is "this perhaps partially explains why my people had so many difficulties with Europeans as a whole" What's with the "my people" and Europeans?"
A. A valid question. I'm happy to explain. I am an Aboriginal American or First Nations. We are often referred to as Indians. Europeans took, poisoned, raped, bullied, lied, etc. all the way across North and South America as well as Australia, Africa and so on. Now, while the argument may be made that aboriginals would have destroyed the planet too, we will never know. The aftermath is that through treachery of Europeans wanting to own it all, little was left. Now "we" all have to work really hard to fix the problems created by other people. At one with the land most of my people have been and we will continue to clean up after "you" as generations of us have and will continue to do so. It is not Man-kinds wrongdoing, it is the peoples who took us to this point. You wrote that it is what we ALL do to solve the problem. I write that it is arrogance to think that an ancient tribe in Brazil has to do anything about it. Do more than your fair share as the fair share of most indigenous peoples is zero. Its ok though, I'll do my unfair share.

If I left out any part that still needs clarification, let me know.

Polar vortex making an appearance this week and I will be away from the internet for a few days fending for native animals. Looks like another record cold for the Midwest section of America.. I hope my Sioux brothers stay safe.