Bye Bye Barry by Joel S. Hirschhorn (Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Read
Topic: The Environment
Eco-centrism, Global Warming, Environmentalism, and Other Loony Religeous Movements Bears, Wolves, Cougars, Alligators, Political Action Groups, and Other Dangerous Predatorsby Earl Todd Singleton
(Libertarian)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
If the self-proclaimed "environmentalists" would all just find something useful or productive to occupy themselves, the world would be a better place. The extinction of the passenger pidgeon has had no measureable effect on the "fragile ecosystem" we hear so much about. In fact, extinction is a good thing. We could be hiding from sabre-toothed tigers instead of drinking beer and watching football games if it weren't for extinction. (just an example, I don't watch football)
Inevitably, eco-centrist objectives lead to anti-human endeavers. The establishment of corridors for animal migration is a prime example. So that elk and grizzly bears can exist without the inconvenience of human activity, ranchers must be eradicated. And let's not forget the spotted owl hoax that devastated logging communities.
Then there is the "marine conservationist" lobby. Responsible for the ruin of fishing families around the country, their lobbying efforts are financed largely by sportfishing tackle manufacturers, aquaculture, and seafood importers. Democra$y at work.
When a bear, cougar, wolf, or some other vermin attacks a human being, great effort is mustered to blame human encroachment and examine the cause of the attack. Why not just eradicate the vermin? This approach would enrage those who worship nature, but may save a human life.
Then there's global warming. This collossal farce is a pretense for infinite regulation of human activity. And the perpetuation of this global travesty is evident in almost every media outlet (the Food Network doesn't go there).
I've been informed that "species are falling off the planet at an alarming rate". Am I to believe that gravity has become selective? Well that would be just as credible as the environmental movement itself.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11 thumbs so far
2007 Earl Todd Singleton, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, December 23, 2007
Last modified: Sunday, December 23, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Earl Todd Singleton only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Earl Todd Singleton is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-23 08:23:41
I think people want to conserve what is on the planet because they feel it might be nice for their progeny to enjoy the same planet they were able to.
You come across as the type of person who tosses beer cans and cigarette butts out of the window of your Monster truck and drive back home to your trashy mobile home where you sweep ants off the counter to make your Spam sandwich.
I am ever astounded at the uglines of the human mind.
I never litter, I hate spam, and I live in a split level on the Gulf of Mexico. You have countered my impeccable reasoning with a baseless personal assault. Thanks for the example of a typical environmentalist reaction.
All I ask is that people be responsible, wise stewards of what is in there power to control. I try to do the same myself. There is a lot more we could do as a civilization to make this earth a more enjoyable place to live. However, (using Earl as an example if I can), It is a lot easier just to bury our heads in the sand and deny any problems. And while we are denying our negative impact on our environment, lets also make fun of those who are trying to do there part to effect positive change. Earl, you come across as one egocentric dude. I hope there is lots of sand down there in the Gulf to bury your head in.
The article denies nothing, while demonstrating how environmental activism tramples individual liberty and serves corporate interests. Unfortunately, insufficient comprehension skills may cause inappropriate reaction. I can't help that.
Instead of trying to eradicate wildlife (i.e. predators - grizzly bears, cougars, wolves) why not use your so-called evolved human brain to find new and creative ways to coexiset with critters that enhance the quality of life for a great number of people. When's the last time you visited a place like yellowstone, glacier park, yosemite? Come on Earl, we're not exactly living in a caveman era where we feel we need to conquer all things wild just because they might inconvenience our way of life a bit and make us alter our behavior. That's what makes us humans great. We have the capability to think and reason and find alternative ways to make things work. I'm sorry, When your individual liberty consists of ignorance in trying to incite others into mismanaging my/your natural resources then YEAH I have problems with that! I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but at least I try to have a responsible approach to environmental ethics. I personally have more respect for far left wing environmental activists than for your sorry type. My comprehension skills are enough to recognize a lousy article when I see one.
Posted By: Robert Berger
Date: 2007-12-25 07:16:30
You claim your article is well-reasoned and only those with comprehension problems would oppose. Without presenting a shed of evidence, you claim that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is a farce. I've seen enough evidence in writings by scientists, public TV specials, and news stories to believe there is a serious problem. However, the history of science has many examples of errant consensuses. If you have good evidence to present, present it, but don't try and pass off a diatribe as good reasoning.
After (finally!) getting around to reading your article, I just thumbed it! I like it! Who knows, I may even fall into that apparently endangered species category that you alluded to! You know, those who may actually have sufficient comprehension skills to respond appropriately... :)
Well, at least I've been persuaded of such by your impeccable reasoning... :) Maybe also a bit by your use of sarcasm with humorous effect. After all, it is somewhat a matter of priorities, don'cha think? I certainly feel that I'm worth a bit more than some spotted owl, although I won't go out of my way to deliberately eradicate them.
Personally, I love Ron Paul's approach to the environment - let the feds keep their cotton-pickin' hands off it, with the possible exception of enforcement of penalties against people or corporations that actually damage someone else. What a kooky concept! :)
Maybe I'll take your arguments seriously if you provide a speck of evidence to support them. There's plenty of evidence that global warming exists. Do you choose to ignore it?
Regrading your conviction that extinction is a good thing, it can be beneficial for others when it happens naturally. It's not happening naturally now. We're responsible for endangering the animals, so we should be responsible for keeping them safe.
No offense, but your remark about an animal attacking a human couldn't be more off the mark. When we try to figure out why the animal attacked the human, we do this after the incident. We don't watch the attack and say, "It's the human's fault," and walk away. Thought and scrutiny may reveal that the human was at fault in this case because he was provoking the bear's cubs. In this case, information can be sent out warning people not to provoke bear cubs. And that is what saves lives.
You say that global warming is used as an excuse to control human activity. No one's trying to control our activity. We Americans are still allowed to pollute and waste resources. They can take away our harmful oil, but they can't take away our ignorance and stupidity.
Albert Einstein is said to have said something to the effect that the consensus of 100 brilliant scientists is shattered by a single fact. From my point of view, the pro anthro induced GW consensus is in the same way at risk. GW skeptics need not rant, only continue to provide data and the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Earl Todd Singleton, all rights reserved.