locality is actually irrelevant. wolf ratios to suitable land and prey, globally, are at critical levels, but, even worse, where they are in the human heart = near zero. bad for wolves, ecosystems, and us, and no laughing matter. humor is part of the problem, humans need a new sense of reverence if we're to survive.

hardly, the attempted humor did not go over my head, it was the attempt i found offensive. these are living beings, and there's nothing funny about even a pointed joke on the subject, IMO.

Yeah, that would be relevant if we were talking about an introduced species... coyote range

Oh please! You really think that's funny?

On the one hand, guilt should not be a function of the cuteness of your victim, but rather the universal wrongness of death without purpose, and on the other, have you never seen a wolf pup?

It's just become so clear that Americans = insensitive, bloodthirsty fiends, dangerously out-of-touch with their own human NATURE. Wolves are barely clinging on to survival around the globe, being hunted to extinction because they represent an inconvenience. Oh, I know, poor, poor humans just can't catch a break from all the terrible wild species encroaching on their mega-malls and competing with their palm oil plantations, cattle leases, ever-spreading suburbs, etc... FYA.

If you're only thinking of you, then you're a dysfunctional part of "us." If we're a collective, as you imply, then each should be an agent of the whole, operating at least partially-motivated by the common interest. What's best for you, by your narrow measurement (material excess), is NOT good for "us." You are a cancer, and should feel free to shove the collected works of Ayn Rand up your...

See the tragedy of the commons

"but stuff that improves my quality of life vastly, as determined by me."

If material goods are what defines the quality of your life, then you have a spiritual problem (like most Americans). I wonder, if the consequences of your mass consumption affected people close to you, instead of those seperated from you by space and/or time (i.e. future generations), if you'd be so capricious?

Don't you see the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of your statement? Why don't you care? The only reason we have a civilization is that more are responsible and moral than are not, or, at least, that's been the case until recently.

And, in the end, those of us who've chosen to moderate our basest tendencies will, at least, know who to blame - those who felt no responsibility to the greater good whatsoever.

Morality: a simple concept for most.

Agreed, especially on point #2.

We need to stop buying crap we don't need, period (which includes pretty much everything that has to be shipped). If that makes it so the global economy can't function (capitalism requiring constant growth, over-consumption, waste), then we need a new economic system - a pretty obvious statement anyway.

Thank you.

In my opinion, a shared sense of moral duty (Kantian) is needed more now than ever. It's sad that we, the west, the supposed children of enlightenment, seem now to reject the self-sacrificing magnanimity of our liberal heritage for pure self-interest, via those myriad options you mention for rationalizing that behavior.

I share your concern regarding extremism/fundamentalism, but I would assert that, at this point in history, market fundamentalism is a greater threat than the religious variety (unless we consider "the free market" a religion, which is probably quite valid). If you're specifically alluding to Islam, I contend the spread of that form of extremism is a symptom of our decay, filling a vacuum left by the apparent death of a moral basis for western civilization (a feature of the ascendancy of free market fundamentalism).

Agreed re: fighting the good fight, but so very frustrating to gain no traction whilst watch it all burn...

Sure, and that risk of stupidity would apply to any attempts to define/implement a rigid all-encompassing political/governing philosophy. Belief in the free market as the basis for a just political system? Yeah, I definitely don't discount human stupidity.

Oh, and what is bankrupting our system is a bunch of boomers getting old - not increased poverty. The mistake was letting the locust generation get away with lower taxes while their liability in terms of government services has gone through the roof. We would not have debt if we taxed responsibly. So what if the average progressive rate reached 40%? How is that unjust? Government functions, and those willing to strive for success are still rewarded, "parasites" and all. A just society, like Sweden. Imagine that.

You're right, it's hard not to be swept up in the culture of doom. However, I think we're facing hypercritical challenges that require the US (I agreed w/Obama when he spoke about humanity's last, best hope) to stand up and take responsibility for ourselves and the future of humanity, but, instead, we're about to make a hard turn towards the libertarian right and a complete lack of cohesive, common-good-oriented governance. That makes me pessimistic, because the planet's ecological coherence (biodiversity, circulatory and immune systems) has been almost completely corrupted/destroyed, and our civilization's existence, already unsustainable 30 years ago, has become fundamentally suicidal. I feel like my moderation is an echo of what we should have been doing for the past 30 years. Now, all the ideas I am hearing for new philosophies (especially the Randian objectivist/libertarians) are radical and dangerous, and it's becoming unclear upon what middle ground my moderation should operate.

oops: aconomic = economic system. need coffee.

Ok, Ayn. I never mentioned abolishing private property. I find nothing about the market (money for goods/services, accumulation with success) as an aconomic disagreeable. I find it disagreeable when it is run as a governing philosophy. They need to be seperate. But, you're one of them, and I know that means your compassion can't compete with your greed and your ideological rigidity. RIGID ideology, no matter how well considered and intended, will lead to failure/evil. It is the basic belief in human goodness, intuition and free will, to make the right choices when a situation arises, that is at the core of liberal governing philosophy - some of this, some of that, and good people and institutions to choose which, contextually. I am a fanatically moderate liberal ecohumanist.