Do you agree with this?

[Skjellyfetti]

The dalai lama has slaves? Cool.

[Ibanez]

The dalai lama has slaves? Cool.

That isn't what Gil said, you dope.

[YoUDeeMan]

The dalai lama has slaves? Cool.

Degrigate. Degrigation is an appropriate word.

No...wait.

Minions. Minionizationisms is an appropriate word. Or one could describe his followers as ignorant fools.

However, just because they don't have physical chains doesn't mean they aren't enslaved. Plenty of people are enslaved by their thinking.

So maybe slaves is, indeed, and appropriate word after all. Or, perhaps slavanistiks.

So many words, so little time.

[Gil Dobie]

The dalai lama has slaves? Cool.

Didn't know you were Chinese.

Huffington Post Link

China To Obama: Dalai Lama Was A Slave Master In Tibet

[kalm]

The dalai lama has slaves? Cool.

Degrigate. Degrigation is an appropriate word.

No...wait.

Minions. Minionizationisms is an appropriate word. Or one could describe his followers as ignorant fools.

However, just because they don't have physical chains doesn't mean they aren't enslaved. Plenty of people are enslaved by their thinking.

So maybe slaves is, indeed, and appropriate word after all. Or, perhaps slavanistiks.

So many words, so little time.

He pays them with eternal bliss.

[YoUDeeMan]

Degrigate. Degrigation is an appropriate word.

No...wait.

Minions. Minionizationisms is an appropriate word. Or one could describe his followers as ignorant fools.

However, just because they don't have physical chains doesn't mean they aren't enslaved. Plenty of people are enslaved by their thinking.

So maybe slaves is, indeed, and appropriate word after all. Or, perhaps slavanistiks.

So many words, so little time.

He pays them with eternal bliss.

How does that get taxed?

[JohnStOnge]

I realize you are very caught up in your own verbosity, but if you actually read the other replies you would see that no one is making a point that we have the ability to completely destroy the earth and all life on it. We do, however, have the power to negatively affect the natural order of things . I

We are part of the natural order of things. That's the thing to keep in mind. We are a species that has been highly successful in exploiting our environment and increasing our population. Our activity has impacts. It makes things different than they would be if we were not around.

But it is part of the natural order of things. That happens. Species arise that cause other species to become extinct. Species arise that completely change the biosphere. There is no static "balance" and there never has been.

[CID1990]

Auto-correct, my ass. That's 120 proof typing.

No. Sober as a judge.

You mean like Smokin' Joe Mendelssohn?

[Ibanez]

No. Sober as a judge.

You mean like Smokin' Joe Mendelssohn?

I don't know who that is.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I realize you are very caught up in your own verbosity, but if you actually read the other replies you would see that no one is making a point that we have the ability to completely destroy the earth and all life on it. We do, however, have the power to negatively affect the natural order of things . I

We are part of the natural order of things. That's the thing to keep in mind. We are a species that has been highly successful in exploiting our environment and increasing our population. Our activity has impacts. It makes things different than they would be if we were not around.

But it is part of the natural order of things. That happens. Species arise that cause other species to become extinct. Species arise that completely change the biosphere. There is no static "balance" and there never has been.

Are you saying that we have no responsibility to limit our impact? We are the king species and screw the rest of the earth - is that your point?

[JohnStOnge]

Are you saying that we have no responsibility to limit our impact? We are the king species and screw the rest of the earth - is that your point?

Yes, except that I don't think we are the "king of species." I think there are species that have been around a whole lot longer than us and will be here long after we're gone. I think there are species that are far more numerous, are a lot older, and have a whole lot of impact that will be here when we've been gone for a very long time.