------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not an environmentalist.  Humans evolved in living ecosystems --
environmentalists seek to preserve them, like curators of a museum.  But
for what?  And from what?  Living on dead land, they protest their own
way of life.

Who can deny the exhilaration of living in a living space?  I would
rather destroy the woods by living in them than save them by not.  I
would rather piss directly in a river than watch my piss being put in a
river on TV.  I would rather chop down two trees myself than vote
against someone else chopping one.

The Environmental movement is champion not of any tangible thing, but of
the ultimate vaporware: "the environment".  You're already there folks!
To your left and right.  How do you like it?

How else could the ozone over Antarctica be more important than the shit
under the street?  A reactionary sympathy with owls one has never seen
is easy.  Living without depending on the extinction of resources, or in
a population not so dense that our bodies must be serviced by pipe and
porcelain like 19th century cyborgs -- that is a challenge.

When humans can build environments that are incapable of harboring a
speck of dirt, that buy my waste with my food and air, then I will join
environmentalists in putting natural ecosystems behind glass.

I am not a vegetarian.  Humans evolved eating meat.  Why go to the
trouble of removing a natural and healthy part of one's diet?  I could
see refusal to buy factory-farmed meat, if also a refusal to buy
factory-farmed anything.  Indeed, factory-farming is a crime against us
all, an on-going horror.  Local agriculture is the only sane
agriculture.

Disliking the taste of meat is one thing -- constructing a moral
argument against its ingestion is another.  I don't suppose you'd ever
hear about the former.  The latter requires several assumptions about an
ideal population density (at the very least) which are also seldom
heard.