+235 Environmentally conscious people will spend more money to spare the environment. But if you have this extra money, why not give it to the less fortunate? We shouldn't be more environmentally conscious than we are humanly conscious, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But then we'll all have no where to live and shit will be contaminated as fuck

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Life is already like that for most of the world.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

True but I think a better solution would be a way to help both at the same pace

by Anonymous 13 years ago

BUT HOW COULD YOU NOT FEEL WITH THE LESS FORTUNATE?! D:< FEEL WITH THEM BITCH!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh...I feel them hello

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, if we help the environment we will have a nicer world for the next generation. I honestly think have a nicer place to sustain the next generation is slightly more important than helping the people now. That sounded really harsh, but hey, you can't live in a giant landfill.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think we should spend the money on making more money. It's a win-win.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think we should all make toast for the less fortunate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I thought you meant "have a toast" at first.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, no. I mean what comes out of a toaster after you put bread in.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I figured that out. That's why I said "at first." d

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think we should all appreciate sea turtles and rainbows.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I understand cars, light bulbs, etc. but people shouldn't send money to companies. You don't know *where* that money is going. Even Al Gore, the big enviro-guy, uses 4 times more electricity than the average American household. PETA is an iffy company, too. I'd also much rather help other people than send money for people to chain themselves to trees. /stereotype /somewhateffective

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Anthroprocentrism: We are but a species part of the ecosystem. The ecosystem sustain are life. Without it we will all be dead. Not just in bad living conditions, but dead.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Humanity has proven itself useless. We have no need to breed since we are extremely overpopulated, and our bodies feed nothing. We are not even a part of the ecosystem anymore. It's not like we need more people living... So why not try to help fix what we've destroyed? It's all we're good for.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ugh, it's one of my pet hates when people say "this cause is better than that cause, so why to people keep giving money to that cause?" Some people are more environmentally conscious than they are conscious of humanity, and that's fine. If you think a different cause is more worthy of support you give your money to them, and leave other people to support what they want to support.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think you're missing the point of having an opinion...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, no. I reckon it's fine to have the opinion that you'd rather give money to a different charity. I just don't like this post because it says "environmentally conscious people should give money to a different cause." Isn't that kinda missing the point of having an opinio?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're kind of contradicting yourself. If you were fine with having that opinion, why can't someone say "environmentally conscious people should give money to a different cause"? That IS the opinion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Eh I get what you're saying, but there are lots of people who give to both. I have a direct debit set up with two charities that I give to each month, one environmental and one helping the less fortunate. We also have a sponsor child in Peru and we try to make an effort to by environmentally safe products. Neither cause is more important than the other and I wouldn't judge someone for only supporting one, at least they are trying to help the world rather than doin g nothing at all.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

all i have to say in summarized form sustaining environment= better life for everyone as the envionment will be better, more crops, a better ecosystem to maintain more life giving to humanity= maintaining/increasing population and destroying the environment as the money isn't going there anymore and honestly, haven't you guys heard of the global warming and all these other destructive causes such as species extinction and stuff? why don't we put our efforts into saving the world we live in that is slowly being destroyed (fastly now) not that giving to the less fortunate is a sin or anything, I'm just trying to point out that saving the environment is a more justifying cause.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why should we help humans out anyways? We act like the most intelligent animal on this planet, but in reality, we're one of the biggest factors that is leading to its destruction. We need to save the Earth for the rest of the animals that occupy it before we worry about ourselves. Those homeless people are paying for humanitys mistake as a whole, and although it's harsh, we need the planet more than they need a home.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No because if we start helping the environment when the human race kills itself other animals can take over assuming we don't kill everything in sight.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You have to put in money time and effort into helping the environment because without it human life would be nothing because it is what gives us food, oxygen, and water supply. Duhhh.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

kinda like my post http://www.amirite.net/437022 btw I'm not saying this is a copy

by Anonymous 13 years ago

88 people make me sick.

by Anonymous 13 years ago