Yas Forums on the environment

well Yas Forums, are you conservationists? are you enviromentalist restrictionists? do you just not care? is it humans job to preserve and lord over nature or are we just a part of an ever changing environment?

Attached: D118_94_547_0004_600.jpg (600x338, 35.32K)

We should kill all leftists because they can't into weather and forests enough to benefit the planet.

Attached: 1585955369134.jpg (429x441, 28.42K)

The environment certainly deserves our protection. Any moral peoples would be concerned about the environment

so is it our role to intervene in the environment and conserve animal and plant life, clean up any pollution, and remove invasive species, or should we just stop pollution, outlaw hunting, and stop inserting man made infrastructure in nature? in other words, conservationist or environmental restrictionist?

I love how leftist retards shill muh environment yet everything they build uses an immense amount of glass and concrete rather than more effectively distributing the use of minerals and materials.
>muh hulking giant glass office buildings

If conservatives took a hard line on conservation and rewilding...ya know... CONSERVING things like hunting, fishing, camping they would win election after election after election.
Im talking Eco-fascist level environmentalism .
Its really convienent that anyone who even suggests maintaining hunting grounds, fishing resources, wilderness is labeled a vegan tree hugging.... extremely convenient for anyone who wants to divide conservatism.

PIC RELATED

Attached: woods.png (1896x673, 2.42M)

Human civilization is a pimple on the face of the Earth, and someday soon the pressure will be too much and the slightest touch will pop it.

Don't forget, China produces more waste than all countries combined and are responsible for the trash islands floating in the ocean. And it's all America's fault.

Attached: 134656ujh74gi75.jpg (798x762, 72.47K)

i dont think its fair to pin architecture to left wingers. i certainly have no idea about what the most environmentally friendly buildings are, or what materials are needed for architecture to look good. buildings and leftism arent really connected imo.

Why not both? You can't solve problems in this world by trying to use a manual for broad issues with many different causations.

Your world view is shallow and short sighted. Your problem solving skills are lackluster.

Environmental restrictionist. Conservationism is not feasible because it is necessarily intervening in mechanisms that ensure natural selection. It is completely normal for species to go extinct or flourish. We humans should do as much as possible not to intervene unless there is a mass extinction threat.

We should however strive to clean up our own mess. The pollution that we have inflicted upon this world is immoral and not to clean it up would be irresponsible. From then on, we should limit our interaction with nature to a minimum.

because you either think humans have no place using the environment and are detrimental to ecosystems they are introduced to, or you think that humans are part of nature and have an obligation to preserve it for their future children and the environment that hosts them.
i dont think ecofascism is very appealing but i personally am a conservationist and think its amazing that people dedicate their lives to preserving and monitering domesticated and wild animal populations.

If I had to say, probably older European infrastructure would be best to go with, everything close by and easily accessible by walking/biking, no need for cars. Buildings small, less impact and less resources needed to make.
Also compliments the landscape nicely, vs skyscrapers which are permanent scars everywhere they pop up. Art deco skyscrapers are an exception to this.

Attached: 26096672-pravdinsk-earlier-friedland-kaliningrad-region-russia.jpg (1300x863, 154.23K)

you dont see us as a vital part of the ecosystem?i agree with you about pollution, but why should we stay out of nature if we can prevent natural selection from wiping out a species of animal we find appealing or worthy of prosperity? unlike other animals we have the ability to choose if animal populations live or die, and with that power comes the responsibility, in my mind, to keep the animals we love and depend on alive.

i never thought about how ugly sky scrapers were until you brought it up. i really like long and irregularly shaped buildings like libraries with multiple floors and branches or school campuses. the pentagon shape houses in the picture just dont appeal to me. once again, im not an architect.

If you are referring to domesticated animals such as dogs and cats, I think they have evolved to be dependent on us. However, if you are asking me to save an animal that is going extinct or is endangered through a natural selection process and by no fault of humans then I can't agree with you. I would however put some effort into saving animals that have been affected by human activity such as the polar bears that have has their numbers diminished due to global warming and replenishing their numbers but I don't think we should intervene in nature because two panda bears are incapable of getting it on.

Skyscrapers use up far too many resources and only really exist to benefit contractors/construction companies. Scaling it down and finding ways to rely on canals more than highways I think would be the most enviro-friendly way of having transit.
I'm not an architect either but I find these kind of towns real comfy compared to the concrete shit we're usually surrounded with in North America.

Attached: правдинск.jpg (843x468, 85.73K)

the woods are sacred there is just something about the forest away from the teaming mob that I just can't get enough of. only people that disagree are faggot zoomers and mutt niggers

Attached: 00 57.jpg (1160x629, 133.55K)

i would kill every living human to built the animal ethnostate.

Having taller buildings for living space reduces the number of buildings required for living space. It is ultimately the best way to reduce the amount of land needed for housing. But I agree on the aesthetics of skyscrapers, They can be quite ugly

This. We need more sustainable housing in contact with nature; like a based garden or orchard, even a recyclabe fish pound. So comfy.

If not building up, building underground could be another way around skyscrapers. Underground farms and such.
I'd be down to live in a moleman society.

Attached: tumblr_nj0qkuzPJ61t0uq7uo1_1280.jpg (724x1532, 361.62K)

Nature is perhaps the grounding point of the national socialist worldview. Deep ecology, real solutions to the environmental crisis, is not only necessary for our survival, but nourish the pagan spirit of our racial community.

Attached: 1582732816902m.jpg (1024x1023, 220.54K)

Both. We have to undo the damage we have done to the best of our ability. Re-wild the natural world.

We should protect nature from Jews, chinks, and niggers.

i was thinking of animals harmed by deforestation and by invasive species when i was talking about saving animals from natural selection. dogs and cats is a good point, its a bit sad that we have so much of their species dependent on humans and human environments for survival. im undecided on wether its ok to just let pandas die because of their own inability to survive though. it would be like letting a country of unique ethnicity die of low birthrates instead of preserving their population.
im more of a coastal person myself. the sheer power of the tides and the energy contained within each passing wave is something that is so unique. i try to describe to my inland friends what it is like just seeing and hearing the energy of the ocean and feeling the misty air every time i go to the cove. the fact that people pollute, throw trash on, and dump toxic materials on beaches is fucking disgusting to me. keep enjoying the woods brother.

what have blacks ever done to nature, they lived in it until we found them. whites have done much more damage to nature.

I thought this was a Latvian Bicycle forum?

>whites
*capitalists
Much of this is against our will.

Reminder that real right wingers are conservationists and environmentalists. Anyone who says otherwise is a boomer.

>pagan spirit
you lost me there
god gave us dominion over all living creatures and we have lost that connection by becoming a fallen people. even if it is impossible to reconnect to the animals and lord over them again as their trusted protectors, we still should try. animal husbandry was our first attempt to reclaim our position.
my suburb has these huge communal gardens that let you rent plots semiannually. its for people who live without yards to garden. most people use it for dumb stuff like herbs and vegetables that they could just buy anyways but theres plenty of people who use it for wildflowers and mighty trees. you should check out if you have a community garden in your area.

hey man I can understand your love for the sea after you explaining it like that. there is just something about the forest and the wilderness every acre of woods is unique in its own way. a individual energy or spirit. I have seen some real un-explainable things in the remote woods thats convinced me that they need protecting from being turned into another strip mall for boomers.

Attached: 1557618788107.jpg (2560x1600, 1.11M)

Sure. I'd save as many animals as possible that have been either directly or indirectly impacted by human activity as well as putting effort and money into rebuilding their natural environment. However, if pandas can't get it on then they are fated to go extinct. If we try to act as intermediaries for panda reproduction, then you are making them dependent on us, which from your perspective sounds like a bad idea, given how dogs and cats are dependent on humans for survival

thats a very good point. i havent thought about it like that. i have to agree then that its probably better to let nature take its course than to breed dying populations into being dependent on humans for survival. it just doesnt feel right to come to that conclusion though. its one of those brain vs the heart things.

the fat cats didn't clear out the woods by themselves, they hired the working class to do it. i don't know why there was such a huge rush to populate this country as fast as possible. you could roam free, why wouldn't people who lived in cities for the past thousand years want to experience untouched nature?

that doesnt really answer the question
that gives me anxiety for some reason. the ceiling is way too high and those train rails look so thin.

(((Yahweh))). God is a Germanic word stolen by desert immigrants to refer to their god. You are part of an immigrant religion.

>implying im not a jew

Then you are openly our enemy. That's okay. Europeans are gentiles (pagans) and they always will be

Attached: 1586030651102.jpg (1015x609, 167.57K)

>implying im a jew

The ivory trade predates western colonialism, so yes, even niggers have impacted nature in a negative manner. The difference is, is that whites actually have something to show for it while niggers will be niggers

Yes. Whatever is needed wherever it’s needed.
The land is to be preserved and enjoyed, a gift that is given across generations.
Economics be damned, money is fickle and transient, the soil you hold is forever and can give and be given long after we are gone.

Attached: IMG_0299.jpg (2448x3264, 3.3M)

>Shape shifting reptilian
Into the bog you go

Attached: 1585662704130.jpg (700x899, 215.16K)

>he is a national socialist with pagan tendencies but does not have at least a garden and meat rabbits
Why?

Attached: florida-white-rabbit-standing.jpg (1920x1440, 1.24M)

Attached: 1571466191139.jpg (501x435, 124.32K)

you unironically create your own rabbit pens just to breed them and cook them? i could never do that desu. with gardens its impersonal but with living animals you name and take care of, i feel like eating it would be an affront to humanity. store bought meat atleast has no sentimental connection to you.

>and remove invasive species
Like non-whites

Attached: 1961c19.jpg (1197x1193, 190.03K)

Why name them? Call them Tuesdays dinner.

I can hunt but to raise an animal purely to just to kill it and eat it I cant. Like the other user said at least in the supermarket you have no emotions towards it. Unless food becomes scarce I wouldnt be able to do all that

Yes. This is how the world works. By placing animals behind a veil and factory farming them (torturing them), you are just making the world objectively worse than if you did it yourself. Commercial husbandry is animal abuse. Expose your own contradiction and take the green pill.

Attached: florida-white-rabbit-mustard-greens.jpg (1920x1440, 1.34M)

do you keep the meat around its mother? does the mother know when its babies are being taken to the slaughtering pen? how long does it take for a rabbit to become viable for food?
i understand the inherent contradiction in preffering commercial livestock but once again my biggest problem is that i would have a connection to the animals i raised. reasoning was made to justify intuition, theres no amount of reasoning that would make me comfortable with raising rabbits for harvesting regardless of how much more humane or efficient it is.

>do you keep the meat around its mother? does the mother know when its babies are being taken to the slaughtering pen? how long does it take for a rabbit to become viable for food?
By meat I think you mean the babies? The answer is yes to that. That is how they live in Nature so I think it's better for their health.

When rabbits give birth for the first time, they often have no idea what the heck just happened. They don't know or suffer greatly when their babies are moved to another pen; they have plenty of socialization.

Does give birth in about 31 days. They can get pregnant again right away, but it's best to have them rest for a while between pregnancies so you'll get about 5 litters per year, about 40 kits per doe.
Fryer (young, tender rabbits) are good to eat from around 8 weeks on.

Attached: 1585275512579m.jpg (682x1024, 76.87K)

Also,

>Not being an INTJ and overriding emotion with reason

Attached: 1585619004539.jpg (442x532, 87.82K)

its interesting that you have this down to a science.
ive always been an intuitionist since intro to philosophy. theres a great book on the subject called "righteous mind". one of the main points of the book is that we often mistake our reasoning for the source of our feelings when in reality we make a judgement instantly and then justify our judgement with logic as a method to convince other people. basically we feel first, think later, and only think because we need to justify our initial feelings.

I personally am an 'Integrationalist'. So nature, and our intelligence (whites and some slants) are in a war. That is because our intelligence is extra-terrestrial, while out meat machines are very mush of this Earth. I propose that we must reconcile our intelligence, which originates far beyond earth) with the meat machine. First step is to learn bushcraft, acquire weapons and read the Nibelungenlied. THAT may cure you.

Attached: 2.jpg (500x333, 218.97K)

pic rel, its on audible

Attached: 11324722._UY1552_SS1552_.jpg (1552x1552, 105.67K)

How do you kill them user, is it relatively painless, etc?

My own intuitionist counterexample to this would be my initial feelings on the idea of killing rabbits myself. It wasn't positive to say the least because I am a suburbanite who had never done this before. Despite that, I rationally chose the opposite because I know it is better for me to do it. I think this comes down to different personality archetypes.