Read this article, please.
And
then tell me who in hell was responsible for coming up with the idea to
host this movie screening at Rachel Carson Elementary School on Earth
Day?
I hope I'm able to formulate
enough of a logical and fact-based letter to the editor that I won't
end up making an ass of all "the so-called extreme environmentalists
that care about trees more than they care about people" -- though I certainly would not speak for them; they are more than capable of speaking for themselves.
My immediate
emotionally-based (and perhaps a pretty good argument) response to this
direct quote from the article is: most environmentalists don't care more about trees than they do about people -- they actually care about trees and the environment because they
care so much about people and want those people (including their
children and their children and their children and their children) to
have a planet to live on -- and not only that, but to have an existence
that is not purely based on trying to survive in a desolate landscape
because of the havoc our actions (and inactions) have wreaked on the Earth.
But, I think my favorite part of the article is this:
"The film deliberately lacked hard statistics to argue its points, but
McAleer and McElhinney let the subjects speak or offer specifics for
themselves".
I'm a little confused after reading this sentence.
In my eyes it appears to contradict itself by claiming that the filmed
lacked hard statistics, but yet the subjects do offer specifics? Did these specifics not try to argue for the
points of the film? Isn't that usually what specifics are for? I guess
I need to find a way to watch this film and understand it a little more
fully. You know, get the whole picture.
What possible good can
come from not reducing the by-products and toxic fumes that we produce
as a human race on a daily basis? Isn't it pretty logical that toxic
fumes are a bad thing and that because the Earth is a living
and breathing creature (where an infinite number of other living and
breathing creatures exist) it would make sense to limit and/or reduce
the amount of toxins we release into the air?
I will try to have grace and patience.
|