Pledge for environmentalists : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

This has been circulating in my area in response to the fanatical enviromental groups.

I, the undersigned, a dedicated supporter of strong enviromental issues, do solemnly swear to adopt the following measures as a means of demonstrating to all my devotion to this noble cause.

#1 I vow to never purchase or utilize any product made of wood or having wooden parts or whose manufacture required the use of wood in the process. Trees should be left untouched as nature intended.

#2 I vow to never purchase or utilize any product made of metal or having metal parts in its construction or whose manufacture required the use of metal. Nor any product shipped, stored, or sold in containers of metal. All metals are produced from mineral ores that are ripped from the earth by machines. Their sources should be left undisturbed as nature intended.

#3 I vow to never purchase or utilize any product made in whole or part of concrete or stone. I will never cross a bridge, enter a building or use water or power from a dam consisting of concrete. Stone, gravel, sand, lime, etc are quarried from the earth. They should be left as they are, undisturbed as nature intended.

#4 I vow to use only such energy, including electricity and communications, as may be produced without interrupting the flow of streams or the burning of fuels. I will burn no wood, coal, oil, or similar products which be left undisturbed as nature intended.

#5 I vow to discontinue (immediatly following the submission of this document) any and all use of paper products made from wood pulp.

#6 I further vow that in all my activities and pursuits, I will abstain from anything that can be conceivably be seen to additionally interfere with the natural order of Earth's resources.

Signed and sworn:______________________

-- Marci (, September 14, 2000


I always try to respect Mother Earth and protect her but, some people do go overboard. This pledge is great. Thanks Marci.

-- Cheryl Cox (, September 14, 2000.

Ha Ha Ha! They forgot any mention of murdering defenseless plants and animals so we can eat and stay warm! Let them all sign it so there will be more room on this planet for those who thank God for giving us all this useful material to keep us happy and comfortable!


-- Jill Schreiber (, September 14, 2000.

I know this is meant to be funny, and it is!

Labels, dontcha love 'em? Makes the world so and white.

Even monkeys use the form of sticks as tools. Perhaps we should all return to a "natural" lifestyle. But we would be better off as amoebae, in that case...

Just rambling...

-- sheepish (, September 14, 2000.

Thanks..I needed this today. It made my day in a sort of sick,intolerant way.. I enjoy being intolerant..My mother was complaining the other day about folks who use mules and horses on their farms.."Well, did they ask the horses and mules if the WANT to pull a plow?" mom, they did not..lets go shoot all the people who so abuse their farm animals, will that make you happy? Mom has a lovely leather coat...go figure...

-- Lesley (, September 14, 2000.

Thanks for the laugh Marci,-Blessings~~~Tracy~~~

-- Tracy Jo Neff (, September 14, 2000.

Good job! I liked it so much I printed it out and got 16 college kids in Bloomington to sign it in only 30 minutes. Ok, so maybe I didn't. Bet I could easy enough though. Thanks for the laugh, John

-- John in S IN (, September 14, 2000.

This illustrates beautifully how life feeds on life. There just isn't anyway to get around it. If you want to live something has to die.

HOWEVER, (yep, I always have one!!) we can't abuse things and expect them to continue to sustain us. We have taken the custodial charge given us by God and changed it into a rape and pillage philosophy. Have we not?

-- Doreen (, September 14, 2000.

Im not sure I like this at all. Funny---yeah, sorta. But.

Sounds to me like it was meant to ridicule fanatical environmentalists, which I have no problem with. But at the same time, it trivializes very real, very serious problems that you dont have to be fanatical to be concerned about.

We have to find some common sense approaches that bridge the gap between senseless materialism and Stone Age existence. This doesnt really help.

Now that I think about it, I dont like it at all, and I dont even think its funny. jd

-- Jd (, September 14, 2000.

Jd, I don't think anyone that took that pledge seriously would even be able to live on a stone age level! I do think that it makes a point, though. We do need to take care of the environment, but some people try to go to extremes, and what they end up doing is trying to legislate the human race out of existence, without really thinking about where the necessities of daily life come from. Earth's resources need to be used properly and in moderation -- I think most everyone who reads Countryside would agree with that, and that we don't need or want a *materialistic* lifestyle. But at the same time, they do need to be used, or the human race does, indeed, either go back to the stone age or cease to exist (and there are some who are so extreme that they would like to see us cease to exist). So while I agree that the pledge isn't funny, I do think it might be useful in making some of the extremists wake up, or at least in making children *think* before they go down that road, as they are being taught to do in the public schools. I think moderation is the key here, as in many other things.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (, September 14, 2000.

I don't think that there is one of us on this forum that takes the preservation and treatment of Mother Earth lightly or thinks that it is not of the utmost importance. Is this not the backbone of the homesteading philosphy?

There can be a "happy medium" between utilizing and preserving. Unfortunately many groups who claim to protect and care for the earth do not see this and do not want this. And yes, this pledge was posted here to make a point of how senseless these groups expectations are.

Unfortunately in some areas, (and where I live is rapidly becoming one), the pendlum has swung too far only one way. It is hard for me to have much empathy for these groups when the mountains that I love and the forest I respect is going up in flames and the flames cannot be controlled because heavy equiptment is not allowed to make a fire break because it is a "protected area". Or scooping water from the river to dump on fires is "endangering trout".

No, I do not apologize for one minute for posting this ridicule of such groups. I only wish I had been the author of it.

-- Marci (, September 14, 2000.

Geesh Jd, after posting that "humorous" piece on another thread, about Dr. Laura and how one should go about upholding "the law", I was just sure you were overflowing with a sense of humor! Hmmm, guess it just depends on what we uphold as valuable. Oh well, those of us that considered that piece silly & simplified, because we value "life, Godly principles, ect... certainly sympathize with your angst at minimizing what you and others value - "mother earth, limited resources & all that". Just a thought. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, September 15, 2000.

Thank you, jd, you put it perfectly.

-- snoozy (, September 15, 2000.

Funny? Yeah, but sobering also. I have, as many other burgeoning environmentalists have, gone from total indifference to my environment through common sense and clear out the other side of extremism (there are none so righteous as the newly converted, eh?) and back again. I think that everyone who "discovers" a new (to them) way of thinking goes through this pendulum swing, whipping first one way then the other, ocsillating between extremes until they find a rut that fits their ideals and comfort zone best.

This new state is unstable, and is subject to tipping either direction at the slightest perturbation, but eventually we all learn to work with reality (and also against it when neccessary) and come to a more or less stable level of behaviour and thought that allows us to exist in our surroundings with the optimum measures of both comfort and a clear (or at least quiet) conscience.

However, everybody does so at their own pace, and no two people do it at the same time, not to mention the fact that we all (hopefully) contiue to learn and grow indefinitely, if not uniformly, and so at any given time, a large population of otherwise sane people are cheerfully diving off the deep ends of any number of ideals and positions. Ergo, there will always be extemists to any cause, no matter how old and talked to death it is, and just as many entrenched old coots who know what's what, or who no longer give a d**n one way or the other, to be bothered by them.

We all learned for ourselves what was right and do-able and healthy for everybody, (not just for ourselves and our cause) in our own time; it is only right to allow others the freedom to pursue their own learning curve as we were allowed to pursue ours. They'll learn, as we did, what can and will be done. (Don't worry, once they have it figured out, they'll get to deal with a whole new generation of freshly minted zealots as their punishment for tormenting us!! LOL)

-- Soni (, September 17, 2000.

Pretty sobering, yes, but I think the best response was the person who said they could go to the college and get signatures. It would go to show that you shouldn't let anyone make commitments until they know what they are actually doing. The telltale question of a fanatical environmentalist should be: "Why haven't you committed suicide yet?" Meanwhile, they still live among us. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid....... Tune in next week for another episode of, THE Nut FILES. Yes, JD, some people NEED to be labeled, categorized, stereotyped, and pigeonholed. Then we need to close the pigeonhouse door and lock it. Who should decide which ones? Me. You. The cows.

I think the best REASONABLE way of life is right inside the covers of Countryside. After that, it is all just shiny, noisy crap. If you can't buy it at Fleet Farm, you don't need it, or you can grow it.

-- Dan (, September 19, 2000.

I was a little concerned about the information on the fire fighting. I know that environmental policy goes out the window when it comes to emergency situations. The big problem is all the fire fuel left in the forest by logging operations and the policy of fighting fires as quickly as possible over the last 50 years or so. Nature burned off the fuel more often and the fires were not so hot or distructive. You should see what the loggers leave behind here in Kentucky and all the erosion that takes place. But also the armed forces could have put the fires out very quickly if they were allowed to respond. It seems we can bomb the hell out of other countries but we can't seem to help out our own people. I was in the Air Force and believe me they have the equipment to do the job. Why don't we use it? Also a lot of people build where they really should not. Then complain when mother nature cancels the lease.

-- Nick Tepsick (, September 25, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ