EnvironmentalistsBTFO'ed with one counterargument

No, let's allow Third Worlders to breed and breed, seeping into our societies faster and in greater numbers taking more resources not just from our retarded aid programs but out of the mouths of our peoples.

Let's allow population to grow so out of control that we have to resort to eating bugs because there is a shortage of food.
Let's keep growing and consuming all until , everyone is POOR, everyone is STARVING and everyone is finally EQUAL
Except for you know who.
Let's make Communism great again!

This planet isn't big enough for all peoples, at least not if we want to maintain any shred of dignity.

Not all environmentalists are that extreme, unless I have the wrong idea about the world. The park service already kills invasive species and the park service loves the environment. If you enjoy parks and don't want to live like China, you're probably an environmentalist.

That guy has the right idea. Big cities were a mistake.

Let's keep growing and consuming all until , everyone is POOR, everyone is STARVING and everyone is finally EQUAL
Except for you know who.

This was one of the breaking points for me a few years ago. I remember being warned my entire life that overpopulation would bring disaster to us all.

Now countries are warned their declining birthrates requires them to bring in people from places that don't give a fuck about population growth or resource issues.

Yeah, no.

Look, I can tell we agree on most issues, as pollution and the like is definitely something that should be avoided (after all, health issues from pollution affect both animals AND humans). The point I am trying to make, however, is that humanity should never hinder its own advancement on behalf of environmental concerns, something that seems to me to be the core belief of environmentalism. It should only limit itself if doing so would be beneficial to humanity itself.

Here's a tip in case you don't know:
Highlight the text you want to greentext before clicking the post number. it will automatically put the > in front of every line you highlighted. It gets rid of annoying errors like in your post.

Sage for off topic as fuck

Your Jew worship cuck religion is getting in the way of common sense

Environment = nature = reality.

The farther you stray from reality to live in a "spiritual" world, the more whites will breed with shitskins and live in a fantasy world.

gets rid of annoying errors like in your post.

That's good to know. Thank you.

The way many genetic modifications are done is by splicing genes from other life forms into the plant you want to modify. I'm just saying we shouldn't discount the possibility that a useful gene exists in some endangered species.
And medicine is almost entirely derived/synthesized from chemicals produced by plants.

I think I agree for the most part. But declaring a few national parks to be off limits for industrialization is not "hindering" our progress as much as redirecting it.
If we know enough about an animal to definitively say "they are completely useless to us" then I would just kinda shrug my shoulders at the prospect of them disappearing. But when it comes to fairly obscure, understudied species, samples should at least be taken to a breeding facility until they are better understood.

If you don't think the environment is the the number one non-racial priority you're a fucking fool. China, India, South America, and Africa need to be fucking exterminated. Non-whites generate most of the pollution on this planet AND create the demand for whites to pollute with industry. Finland wouldn't be destroying it's forests for timber if the Chinks weren't buying it. Niggers wouldn't be pouring into Europe to live 1st world lifestyles if there weren't any niggers.

Buck up and accept that 90% of humanity needs to die. Any amount of humans above 500 million does permanent irreversible damage to the planet. I don't wanna raise Aryan children on a planet where the Chinks and Poo In Loos are destroying the ocean with CO2 sequestration and poisoning their air.

Healthy Earth = Healthy People. Aryans are the Earth's white blood cells. It's our duty to kill the virus choking the planet to death.

You cannot consider an off chance of something happening to be an argument. If we did, then anybody could successfully argue that the state should make him a millionaire on the off chance that he'd become a successful bussinessman that would then repay the investment ten fold by taxes. Or that the state should give him enough money to not need to work, ever, on the off chance he'd use the spare time to become an artistic mastermind. Or that we should let that murderer from prison because he claims to have found the cure for cancer, but won't tell unless we let him out, and hey, there is a miniscule possibility he's not bullshitting.

I never said I am against national parks. I am against shit like blocking an oil pipeline because "OY VEY IT COULD SOMEHOW BREAK ONE DAY IN THAT ONE SPOT THAT IS ACROSS THE RIVER AND CAUSE AN AQUATIC HOLOCAUST!"

That is being done, however. Like, you just described one of the tasks of a zoo.

Dubs made me ironically side with the environmentalists, the shitskins need to go.

Protecting useless animals isn't wrong though. Think of manatees, those are the biggest useless fucks in existence, but I wouldn't like to see them disappear. Nature is like artwork that can't be replaced, not yet anyways.

I have one better… "nazis are environmentalists, they want to purge the stupid humans from the world to save the environment"

Feeding cattle seaweed would do more than the extermination of all of Africa for example according to science. However Id chose the latter obviously. Or why not both?

It's not really an "off chance" when you consider how fucking many endangered species there are.
Sure, it's a small chance for an individual species, but the number of species out there turns the prospect that a few have a useful gene into near certainty.

I'm with you there. But this does come with the caveat that extra care should be taken to reinforce and protect it wherever a failure could have the most drastic consequences.

Experimentation isn't done to a large extent there though. They observe behavior, but not their genome. And vivisection is almost completely out of the question.

A bit of pragmatism is involved though. I would hate to see manatees go as well, but if something better replaced them I'd be content with it.

True, they aren't even aesthetically pleasing, just fat.

NSDAP Germany was one of the first environmentally-minded governments.
The problem isn't protecting the environment, it's using environmental protection as a way to push through bullshit regulations and other Kikery into the law.
"Greenpeace" and the "EPA" are heavily infiltrated organisations that are in bed with the government.
The real 'emissions' problem is methane from factory farming, not CO2.
See the Documentary: Cowspiracy for more info on this.

You're right that environmentalism has largely been co-opted by those who wish to impose regulations. I think the methane problem from farming can be utilized to our advantage, though. Methane is a decent (though obviously imperfect) fuel source. If we could harvest said methane, which would be much easier to do in a closed farm rather than an open ranged one, we could utilize it.

Humans will keep polluting and trashing the planet for another 1000 years. Because comfort and progress Trumps envirofags and backtonature cucks. You don't want nice things? Go out into the woods, realise that rain, and cold, and snow, and heat are all fucking terrible. Bugs are annoying, the animals are all faggots who either want to eat you or steal your shit, your tools will break and you won't have the skills to replace them, the land does not provide sufficient sustenance to keep you alive and one failed crop season means you die, and in general your time is spent always preparing, working, fixing, or dealing with some unforseen problem. If you can survive a year doing this, you will soon realise why people prefer to live in glass and concrete skyscraper hundreds of feet above a teeming metropolis rather than a dirty hovel in a remote place. Of course I forgot to mention that if everyone went back to living like the pre-industrial days you would now have to deal with the constant threat of thieves, murderers, rapists, vagabonds, and miscreants- because the closest help is 2 days ride away and in the best case scenario you now have to dig graves before the rotting bodies attract bears which will scare away your cattle and leave you destitute or climbing the countryside looking for the idiot creatures.

But please, keep telling yourself that nature loves you and wants to be your friend. We are destroying the natural world because for millions of years it tried to destroy us. Never forget, never forgive. Kill everything, vengeance for our ancestors.

Just like if you managed to fund ALL the NEETs and beggars in the world, there would almost certainly be excellent artists among them. Also remember that new species are created too, so even should some such miraculous gene go wasted, it could reappear later on anyway, especially if there was a concentrated effort by the scientists to breed such a species into existence.

Breeding is, though, and you mentioned a "breeding facility". If you get shit like pandas, who are too lazy to fuck, however, there's not much the zoo can do.

Succinctly put.
Anyone who scoffs at the core idea of environmentalism and would rather have the world covered in concrete and steel cannot call themselves National Socialist.

Cold is good and being a farmer is not going back to pre-industrial days. Fuck your skyscraper.

when the jews collapse america im sure you'll be a happy potato farming faggot, while the local negros ride in to rape your wife and daughters.

You sure you're on the right board? Did you get some bad intel?

That's a different issue entirely. You don't need to keep NEETs afloat as there are plenty of non-NEETs already producing art and discovering shit. But if the last of a species dies, so does whatever useful gene they might have had. Any human who would have discovered its usefulness would be shit out of luck even if the opportunity came their way.
over the course of thousands if not millions of years, maybe.
Unless things like CRISPR are improved and come into greater prominence (which I am 100% in support of and very optimistic about), then you'd have to wait for the gene to actually be created through mutation before you can put it into an animal or plant.

And that's good. But we also need to experiment on them. Experimentation is literally half the reason I want them to survive.
Pandas were pretty much what came to my mind when I said some animals could go extinct and I'd be ok with it. I honestly don't know much about pandas but I do know other people know damn near everything there is to know about them. So far they don't seem useful and are a bitch to keep alive, so they can go for all I care.
They are pretty though and I would be a little sad to hear they're gone.

You sound like a nigger to praise the city this much.

Just as there are many other species suiting our needs rather well so far. Just like there could be some miraculous gene in some obscure bug, there could be a miraculous artist among the beggars and NEETs that could start a whole new chapter in art and society in general and deliver us from post-modernist bullshit. My point is that anything can happen, and if we started dealing with what-ifs, we wouldn't move anywhere. Show me an endangered species possessing a cancer-curing gene, and I'll be all for protecting and breeding it. But if you give me a million bugs, one more disgusting than the next, none of them seeming to be any more useful than a cockroach, I find it hard to care whether they go extinct or not, much less willing to provide concentrated effort to "protect their natural habitat" which is right on top of a valuable resource deposit.

I don't see why it should take that long, when we can give it a direct course ourselves. Think how quickly we can breed new races of dogs or create new varieties of apples. Most of the species going extinct are just sub-species of something else, differing sligthly in a thing or two. I don't see why it should be hard to breed something like that from the primary species again.

*100%
FTFY

Liberal hippie "environmentalism" is absolute trash, but so is the cuckservative counter-movement that throws all other forms of environmentalism out of the window too. Environmentalism is White as FUCK, and at least anybody who calls themselves a NatSoc should recognize Hitler's efforts towards protecting the environment during his regime (e.g. first animal protection laws ever, which were also against kosher slaughter oy vey).
Only neurotic kikes and (((capitalists))) deem it normal to pollute the air and water of our homelands for a bit more money and temporary "freedom". Then they come with the "solution", which is a totalitarian communist wet dream that bans you from earning money if you as much as dare buying meat on a day that's not your birthday.

Seeing the treatment and devastation of the wildlife and greenery of shitskin lands me accept this. Dogs boiled alive by chinks, massive fishing wiping out massive percentages of marine biology, near total deforestation in Haiti etc. is not a reassuring thought.

So what you're saying is we should have a pragmatic approach to environmentalism? Both the libcucks and cuckservatives like to politicize the issue without actually doing anything that matters for nature itself.

yeah because cities are only filled with niggers. not the most successful businesses and elite minds, just niggers.

shit thread

Just bring up the fact that pollutuion and climaye change are only happeninf because of overpopulation in India and China with BILLIONS of people. The US ONLY HAS 300 MILLION. No matter how industrious we are, we could never compete with the non-whites out of raw numbers.

Of they can't admit that then they only "care" about the environment because it's the "liberal" thing to do. When in fact the very IDEA of conserving nature is conservative.

Tell me, user, who do we figure out whether such a cancer curing gene is present?
I don't really care if it's their "natural habitat" as much as I care about research/experimentation. I don't even see national parks as a means of preserving particular species. I only think they should exist to preserve the natural beauty of the country. When it comes to bugs we don't know much about, I'd be in favor of just throwing them in a drawer somewhere with some food if it would keep them alive long enough for testing. Valuable resources should be extracted when they are found as long as we don't turn the entire country into a garbage dump in the process.

we can selectively breed. This does NOT create new genes though. That happens randomly via mutation. What do you propose we do to speed up this process? Bombard them with radiation?
Again, CRISPR seems like a great solution, but it's far from perfect in its current iteration.

fuck right off

Pick up garbage and plant trees or whatever, be a steward of the land for the future, that is real environmentalism. Forcing people to give money to kikes that claim it will go to shitskins to absolve you of carbon sin is retarded.

Exactly. My goal would be to make it so that being an environmentalist isn't a political issue but a self-preservation one, which is not limited to politics and transcends all of it.

You better not quote the Georgia Guidestones when you say shit like this, otherwise you're bretty good and I agree.

The biggest issue with the "the world is overpopulated and it's getting worse" faggots isn't that they're wrong, it's that they're targeting the wrong audience (well, considering it's the kikes targeting whites, you could say the "right" audience).

The problem with the overpopulation argument is that it's preached to people who are low on the priority list: it's thrown in the face of intelligent, civilized whites. They don't tell the African niggers "hey, stop fucking and popping out babies like rabbits, even though you retards have zero food to feed your populations and you keep fucking anyway." They don't tell the Chinese "hey, you fucking morons that rape the environment and hold zero consideration for human life, stop reproducing and trying to industrialize your country 110% and putting metric shit tons of poison and toxins in the air every fucking week." No, they tell the WHITE people, perhaps one of the few actually important and redeeming races on the planet, that they need to stop having children because of overpopulation. But nooooo, Gwumbumbo and his three wives and eighteen children are fine, and the forty offspring those children will produce. Somehow it seems that whenever overpopulation comes up, it's never other countries' populations that are the problem, it's only Caucasians.

The argument isn't incorrect, it's that it's used as a weapon to further attempt to control and reduce the number of white people living in the world. So whenever someone tries that argument, tell them "yes, once the Chinese cut back on polluting the planet and the starving african niggers stop having a half dozen kids per couple constantly, then I'll consider holding back the propagation of my race."

Personally, I'm of the mind that might makes right. We should reproduce, take back our countries, and once again become a whites-only and -controlled Western Civilization. And, if ever we hit the point where we're running out of resources for our people, we should walk into Africa (like the Chinese are doing right now) and take what we need by force. There is zero reason to preserve the niggers, they're worse than animals.

I was going to post something else but fuck it, I've been needing to get this shit off my chest a long while now, and I ought to post it while the thread is still young and not saturated with established discussion.

Need I remind you that most of those who claim to advocate positively towards the environment and good, whole natured Aryan family life are the same faggots who wank themselves silly over a fictionalized version of the 80s and call it "future-fash"?

When asked what their favorite aspects about that decade were, a certain pattern emerges:
By this point almost entirely synthetic and impossible to accurately reproduce without complex electronic systems, not to mention produced by Jews. A far cry from the epics and operas that were still being regularly churned out just a century earlier.
Again, produced entirely by Jews aside from the rare resident foo/tv/oyeur that knows his HK crime dramas from his kino.
Primarily propagated by Jews and the direct antithesis of a free, perfectly natural environment. You can say you don't support it and that it stands against everything you choose to align yourself with yet I can't go a week here without seeing that fucking video of coked-up Boomers and Xers inside a 7/11 at 2 AM ready to go to Disney Land or wherever the hell they were going in an attempt to show how things really were "better" back then and that it had nothing to do with the fact that you were a child with no obligations or worries in the world.
Of course, don't get me wrong, there were constructive, worthwhile experiences to be had back in the 80s or earlier that you simply wouldn't be able to do now or incur great difficulty doing so like gay bashing (fuck off sex-traitors with your muh greeks repertoire you will all hang on DOTR), buying a house or listening to war stories from veterans who have now long since passed on, but an awful lot of it, I've noticed, is unbridled degeneracy. Going to raves. Becoming a punk, prep or metrosexual sissy faggot when it was (((socially acceptable))) to do so. Being a Yuppie. Having sex with all you desire instead of a stable monogamic relationship.

I digress. The way I see it, aside from being united in NatSoc (lolbergs please die already), you're one of three things:

And you can only be one, so choose wisely.

We have 300 million due to immigration and before when we only had 100 million we
always
outcompeted the rest of the world combined, save a few scandinavian and european countries in some select technology swiss watch making comes to mind

Seems like we are in agreement. After all, living in beautiful surroundings is something beneficial for humanity.

Well, why don't they do that, then, instead of autistically screeching about a small patch of land?

I think we should be pragmatic about protecting our environment. Primitivism is certifiably retarded but that doesn't mean I want to turn the country into an industrial wasteland.
This includes developing better methods of protecting the environment.
Tech doesn't have to come at the cost of destroying the country's natural beauty.

I personally think there should be more of a drive to integrate nature into the cities. There's no reason There can't be trees lining the sidewalk or grass growing on it other than the fact we put a bunch of concrete where that shit could be.

Because muh feels.
I don't agree with every single thing that any environmentalist believes.

Friendly reminder that pagan reverence for the natural world is fundamentally antithetical to the spiritual and social nature of Jews and they fear the revival of that spiritual paradigm. As far as I'm concerned this thread is required reading and on Holla Forums's GOAT short list despite the [autistic screeching] near the end and should be posted in every religion thread and every thread about the natural world.
archive.is/nDTfC

But don't believe me, read it straight from the rat's mouth.
archive.is/WxZsU

Ah thanks lad, also wanted to post the first archive. Gold-tier thread, obligatory for everyone ITT.

user this is why we have paved streets. And along with it a shit ton of sewer and street drains, water lines etc etc

>archive.is/nDTfC
Great archive, great thread. I had the honor of posting in it.

Obviously we pave the fucking streets.
Forgive my shit artwork, but this is kinda what I'm talking about

We need to cut off financial aid to Africa and blockade China/India.

How is that a counterargument?

Humans are the only ones that ruin the environment. Biggest issue is that there are simply too many humans. 7 billion is way too much.

Nicely put user

Anyone against TRULY saving the environment needs to be gassed for they are no better than a kike or a nigger. Nature is what allowed whites to rise, spitting in the face of it and destroying it will just kill you in the end.

Overpopulation is bullshit. We could sustain our population and much more than that.
More people die from obesity related causes than starvation.

I agree.
We need to stop breeding ASAP.

Don't put the pipes and shit under the street. What happens when you have an issue with the lines? Now you have to dig up the street and fuck the flow of traffic.
I do agree with incorporating nature into cities though. Have fruit trees every where. Edible fences made of blueberries, rapsberries etc. Anybody against a city mixed with nature is under the Jew's spell.

One big issue is plastics, they have to be replaced. We've already fucked the oceans into oblivion with them.

well obviously not, since the environment is getting fucked

I spent hours crawling through .is trying to find it the first time I needed it because I couldn't remember the phrasing of the OP. Now I have it bookmarked.

Likewise for me and that's why I remembered it. Pity we can't have civil threads about (non-Kekist) religion and spirituality these days; they all just spin off into /fringe/-tier stuff and shitposting. To say nothing of the art and philosophy threads, which are anchored as soon as they pop up, dragged way off-topic or are just outright baleeted.

In terms of being better yes, in terms of pollution and damaging the environment, no.

That is precisely what we currently do.
In most cases, that's what manholes are for.
And we do exactly that in cases where the problem cannot be fixed through the manhole.

"Plastic" is a pretty broad term that refers to many different polymers. Some are obviously better than others (some of them even contain chemicals that mimic estrogen in the body).
But yes, material synthesis should be improved wherever possible.

1 million people can utterly fuck the environment if they truly just didn't give a fuck. It's not a matter of how many people there are, but what they're doing.

(checked)
I miss those. One day again, hopefully soon.

SIEG HEIL Holla Forums AND ALL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!

If they think humans are so bad for the environment then they should kill themselves to ease the burden. What's the matter, don't you want to save the environment? Either kill yourself or admit you're just a selfish prick that puts him/herself ahead of the fate of the entire planet.

but then there would be noone to educate us, blind proles, user, can't you see? :^)

What made you think this was a good premise for a thread?

Invasive species, like jews, shitskins and niggers.
Zebra mollusks, various types of fly, mosquito and africanized bee. Other invasive species. Bamboo and kudzu in North America.

Oy vey, those bears killed my grandfather 6 gorillion times, I require vengeance!

non-white confirmed

We don't need to halt reproduction if we are allowed more life room. :^)

Are you actually autistc?
You are incredibly out of touch.
You don't even understand the basics of nature being law.

I see you moshie, we're all equal ehhhhh?
Kys