Bingo! And if you countered their ideas with your own they might feel the same way, right?
Nope, you are equating "first, do no harm" with "I think I know what I am doing." They are not comparable in principle or action.
That is not a rational conclusion. That is like saying your house is on fire but since you don't know all the principles of fire fighting that you don't try something. Even if you're not a professional fire fighter you know not to throw gasoline on it and you have at least a vague notion that water might help. Doing nothing can be as detrimental as doing something. Doing nothing will achieve the same outcome as thwoing gasoline on it. And it really isn't fair to tell someone else they shouldn't throw water on their burning house just because they aren't a firefighter.......especially when your house is not on fire.
This is a poor analogy in that nature (minus human impacts) left to its own devices, does not need saving or to be improved upon. And again, you are comparing managed habitat, a house, a farm, etc., with un-managed habitat.
And again, aren't you the one arguing that we'd all be in hot water if the liberals hadn't been doing something?
I you think about it, what environmentalists, most commonly found among the liberal persuasion these days, do for the most part is to try to stop projects that will have detrimental effects on wildlife populations and habitats. Actually, they are asking that others do nothing, or at least do something less harmful. In some cases, environmentalists will actively "do" something such as restore habitat, because somebody else did harm in the past. If you want to argue the semantics of "do" you are missing the point. Yes, this is a generalization.
And I'm all for leaving some stuff alone if that's what seems like the best thing to do. I like to think that there are areas that are "pristine" and "untouched". But that is still a choice that is based on how we want things to be. And leaving habitat alone is not always the best policy. We often put out forest fires in our national parks even though the fires are part of a natural, regenerative process. There are good arguments on both sides of that issue.
