| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Meteorology Forum » The Anti-Human Agenda...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| 00ZNB... |
 Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dr. Tim Ball
May 19, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3116
Anti-humanity and anti-society environmentalists
A tongue-in-cheek comment from my university said if we could just get
rid of the students it would be a great place to work. Some
environmentalists think if we could just get rid of all the people on
the planet it would be a great place to live. Generally over-population
is a major part of the environmentalists' argument that humans are
causing all the problems, including climate change. Satire is a good
measure of this position typified by the bumper sticker that says, "Save
the Planet, Kill Yourself."
The relationship between population and resources has been an issue
throughout history. All predictions to date were wrong including Thomas
Malthus in the 19th century, who claimed the population would outgrow
the food supply. The most recent flurry of alarmism over population
growth was a key piece of the ideas of the Club of Rome and the now
discredited book "Limits to Growth". It received momentum through Paul
Ehrlich's book, "The Population Bomb." The ideas were combined with
sustainable development at the 1994 world conference on population in
Cairo. Here it is in 'bureaucratese' from Section 3.1
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21,
adopted by the international community at the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development, call for patterns of development that
reflect the new understanding of these and other intersectoral linkages.
There is also general agreement that unsustainable consumption and
production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural
resources and environmental degradation as well as to the reinforcement
of social inequities and of poverty with the above- mentioned
consequences for demographic parameters.
Although the discussion was about health and development, there was
little doubt the underlying theme was the need to reduce population,
especially in the developing world. It was the wrong approach. The error
of left wing politics is to ignore how population declines with
increased development. It's a process called the "demographic
transition" in which the death rate declines, then the birth rate
declines and population numbers decline. It is evident in every
developed country and unless supplemented by immigration, as many
developed nations are now practicing, can cause other problems.
Environmentalism in its more virulent form is anti-humanity, and
anti-evolution. It holds that human progress is not a natural evolution
but an unnatural aberration. Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, said, "Environmentalism
intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to
liberate nature from human exploitation."
The 1990 Greenpeace Report on Global Warming said, "Carbon dioxide is
added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally." What do they mean by
"unnatural"? It is a Freudian slip disclosing an underlying thought, but
it also introduces a profound contradiction. If what humans do is not
natural, then by inference we are not natural. If we are not natural
then by default you must conclude a greater authority put us here--but
of course they don't want that either.
Somehow evolution, survival of the fittest and the most adaptable, doesn't
apply to humans. Some actually express this view. David Graber, a
research biologist with the National park Service said,
"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as
a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that
people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line -
at about a billion years ago - we quit the contract and became a cancer.
We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is
cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy
of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal
consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide
to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come
along."
What contract and with whom? What happens if the virus wipes out Graber
and his like? Perhaps Christopher Manes, author of "Green Rage", would
decide because he says "a large percentage of humanity is (an)
ecological redundancy." Getting rid of everyone permanently solves the
problem - David Foreman former chief lobbyist for the Wilderness Society
says the optimum number is zero. Presumably he's the last to go.
Canadian David Suzuki, a former genetics professor might see the irony,
although I doubt it. He said. "Economics is a very species -
chauvinistic idea. No other species on earth - and there are may be 30
million of them - has had the nerve to put forth a concept called
economics, in which one species, us, declares the right to put value on
everything else on earth, in the living and non-living world." First, he
is wrong because all other species do put a value on everything else -
it is food or it is not food. Doesn't get more basic than that. Second,
the 30 million number is wrong, but so are the statistics Suzuki uses
about the rate of extinctions. Then it is another of those confounded
species chauvinistic ideas and doesn't apply to those who know the
truth. Suzuki traveled across Canada selling a book (how economically
driven) claiming 2 species an hour were becoming extinct. I challenged
him to name them and the 46 others that disappeared everyday. I
suggested we have a daily obituary column lamenting them. It won't
happen because it simply doesn't happen. It does imply we are arrogant
mass-murderers as well as economists. Of course no other species had
the nerve or ability to develop concepts like economics. Conceptual
thought is another of the evolutionary advances humans made. Or is it?
Again we confront the conundrum - apparently our advances are not
evolutionary, we are not playing according to the 'natural ' rules.
The English TV comedy series "Yes Minister" had a wonderful episode in
which the most efficient and economical hospital was one that had no
patients. Well environmentalists don't harbor those views lightly.
Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said,
"Mankind is a cancer; we're the biggest blight on the face of the
earth." "If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought
before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But,
if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of
Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of
Earth-dwelling species, Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on earth, social and environmental."
It's too bad the dinosaurs or all the other species that became extinct
long before Homo Sapiens came on the scene did not know of this.
Before you conclude Ms. Newkirk is alone in this extreme view, consider
Richard Conniff's comment in "Audubon." "Among environmentalists sharing
two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some
calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once
again have a chance." The Roman adage, In vino veritas (In wine there is
truth) applies although apparently Ms. Newkirk did not need such liquid
courage.
I struggled for years with the role or function of extremists in
society. I realize now their job is to define the limits of an idea or
ideology. We are all environmentalists to a greater or lesser extent and
we should resent those who have usurped the concept or the title.
Everyone cares about the environment; the question is how far do we
pursue the concept. Those who are anti-humanity and anti-society or don't
believe evolution applies to humans have the ultimate in arrogance. Is
there any other species that would advocate its own demise?
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind
is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at six-o'clock in
the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:26 pm
|
|