Environmentalism as Religion

[BTS]

I throw this out for debate..........





"Environmentalism as Religion"

by Michael Crichton



I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge

facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge

facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy,

truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to

mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation

age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.



We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the

solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told

exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a

sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us

by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional

state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of

reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to

decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because

they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and

fears.



As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about

environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly

clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way

that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the

consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I

believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the

environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the

future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and

should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes

responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our

actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of

environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our

best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our

past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know

why.



I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that

certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated

from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live

in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most

enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you

cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in

one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God,

but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life,

and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.



Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is

environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for

urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the

beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a

perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and

myths.



There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature,

there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating

from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a

judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die,

unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability

is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its

communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right

beliefs, imbibe.



Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are

deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs.

They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't

want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a

belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the

reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that

I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued.

These are issues of faith.



And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts

aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about

belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether

you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the

side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.



Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot

more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know

now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths

do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.



There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful

mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four

children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in

six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in

America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing

millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it

was Eden?



And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the

Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly

arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about

wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several

thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process.

And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly:

the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare.

Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes

of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs,

Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And

those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to

build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.



How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New

Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters.

The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can

imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive

that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It

was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the

word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That

anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of

religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of

factual contradiction.



There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that

claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the

indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some

thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does

indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea

highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies

until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal

neurological disease, when they did so.



More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a

publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the

highest murder rates on the planet.



In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only

held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in

nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs

about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or

the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the

plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.



And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you

will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek

through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering

sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your

hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and

sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing,

you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of

Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have

covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can

to keep those bugs off you.



The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people

want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the

windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff.

Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the

cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does.

It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows

increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking

about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.



One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people

who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is.

They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled

to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and

freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't

conceive the real power of what we blithely call "the force of nature." They

have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.



The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be.

They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural

world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations

comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban

environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they

wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments

as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that

pleases them.



But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand

that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and

unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.



Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern

Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a

glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't

deep---maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold

as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with

extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a

three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound

fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was

a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be

at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a

helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead

from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because

out in nature a little slip could be deadly.



But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and

mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace,

then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation,

sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom

from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees

and conserve every day?



Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left

off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism

have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade

world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are

falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the

thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of

20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around

1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think

that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are

some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this

a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we

now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking

population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population.

Nobody anywhere will say th

at the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be

true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished,

like a mirage in the desert. They were never there---though they still

appear, in the future. As mirages do.





Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong;

they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a

whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all

natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation

in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all

species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.



With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions

would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on

the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't

quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his

placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One

of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled

by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.



So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about

to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report

them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to

die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who

banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell

you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor

people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a

callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new

cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus

irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most

disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew

better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and

didn't give a damn.



I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and

never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence

for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can

tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization,

including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is

shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you

that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no

known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in

the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded

a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise

nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of

time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative

technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.



I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I

can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in

the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such

references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the

beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of

faith. Unshakeable belief.



Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious

fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with

fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never

recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways

of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they

believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the

business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right

way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally

uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world,

fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness

to other ideas.



I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our

thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around

the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But

this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of

religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the

doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.



There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of

environmentalism.



First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very

effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that

religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed

somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good

record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and

verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible.

And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the

frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is

to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the

parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote

effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the

Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more

complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard

Nixon. And never forget which pres

ident sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara:

Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.



The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing.

Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment

is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we

usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are

demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state

of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national

parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a

well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need

to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to

accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We

need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need

to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these

things.



How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion,

and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must

institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in

the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts

that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an

underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their

case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more

groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that

they know to be false.



This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this

moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it

is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new

organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be

ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical

research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in

this field get honest fast.



Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if

we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the

Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild

prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a

good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the

religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism,

and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

[nvalleyvee]

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if

we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the

Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild

prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a

good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the

religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism,

and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.



Dang I agree with this. I have been argueing with EPA vs science for years.

Do any of you know who this man is?

My favorite science fiction writer.

[BTS]

Thing that go BUMP in the nite.......



BUMP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BUMP

[Accountable]

too long for me to read before I go to work. Can you give a synopsis?

[911]

Where did you get this quote?

You should read (if you haven't already) his book, State of Fear. It's excellent and will make you think twice about the so called evidence that is thrown at us daily. He backs up most of his characters information with facts and charts from our own government.

But his is not a popular theory, but perhaps people will see the light if they do their own research and not depend on others. Sort of like the war in Iraq now.

It amazes me the push to stop people from smoking claiming it's hurting innocent people. But no one is trying to overtax alcohol or figuring out a way to stop people from driving drunk and killing more people in one year than so called second hand smoking in ten.

Do you know the number of your co-workers who would probably not pass a blood alcohol test the next day after drinking all night?

We are slowly becoming a nation of no freedoms. They have stopped selling rare steaks in some parts of CA, some towns have pass an ordinance that kids cannot wear low slung pants. some cities have passed ordinances that you can't smoke in your own backyard, etc, etc, etc. If none of these affect you, and in some cases you actually applaud these actions, who's going to be left to help you fight those freedoms you want to keep?

[Lulu2]

Lumping environmentalism in with religion makes very little sense. Religion is concerned with the afterlife...about salvation and about a relationship with the creator of all things. Religion, in the BEST sense, is concerned with a personal tie to the cosmos. In the WORST sense, it's about money and power.

Environmentalism is concerned with preserving a healthy planet and realizing that human beings must be aware of their relationship with all species, lest we lose our own lives.

What I've noticed is that many religious people tend to downplay the idea of environmentalism, preferring to take the religously approved idea that man was SET DOWN IN DOMINION over the earth and all the animals. I've wished so many times that the phrase had been translated as "stewardship."

STEWARDSHIP is very different from DOMINION, isn't it?

Unfortunately, many religious people still presume that the planet, all its resources and all the other species are for our use.

That attitude, unchecked, could be the end of all of us.

[BTS]

Lulu2;500055 wrote: Lumping environmentalism in with religion makes very little sense. Religion is concerned with the afterlife...about salvation and about a relationship with the creator of all things. Religion, in the BEST sense, is concerned with a personal tie to the cosmos. In the WORST sense, it's about money and power.



Environmentalism is concerned with preserving a healthy planet and realizing that human beings must be aware of their relationship with all species, lest we lose our own lives.



What I've noticed is that many religious people tend to downplay the idea of environmentalism, preferring to take the religously approved idea that man was SET DOWN IN DOMINION over the earth and all the animals. I've wished so many times that the phrase had been translated as "stewardship."



STEWARDSHIP is very different from DOMINION, isn't it?



Unfortunately, many religious people still presume that the planet, all its resources and all the other species are for our use.



That attitude, unchecked, could be the end of all of us.


His point is:

Religion and Environmentalism do NOT need facts. They run on faith.

That is why he lumped them together.



You say "

Environmentalism is concerned with preserving a healthy planet and realizing that human beings must be aware of their relationship with all species, lest we lose our own lives."



I think we are ALL concerned with having a healthy planet.... but let's do it with REAL science and not junk science that has been debunked time and time again..



Stewardship.......

ah yes REAL stewardship or a Govt run land grab?

Who are the REAL stewards of of my country?

Is it BLM.......NOT

Forest Circus.........NOT

Any Govt. run program........NOT



Who are the REAL stewards.........

In my opinion it is the people who work the land, whether it be farming or ranching.

They have done MORE good than ANY Govt. program ever has.

Just look at what all the environmentalist say about their lands while they are trying to take over so they can be the stewards of the land:

They say oh this land is sooo PRISTENE and we gotta save it............



Oh really SAVE IT?

From what?

A family that has worked it for generations and left it in BETTER shape than when they found it in the 1800's?

Save it from WHAT and for WHO I ask?



Here are 2 great articles on this same subject:

The GREENING of America....... How did it happen?

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/f ... merica.pdf



http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... art-ii.pdf

[Lulu2]

"Save it from WHAT and for WHO I ask?"

++++++++++ Have you ever been to the Amazon? Have you ever flown over Borneo? No? Then don't ask.

If you've never seen the devastation which comes from deforestation of rainforest...you can't imagine the deep disturbance it creates in your soul.

SAVE IT FOR THE WORLD!

[Galbally]

I think that most of these problems come from getting the idea of belief mixed up with just rationality, and the scientific method. People who "believe" in the environment in some mystical way for its own sake are not taking into account that human beings and their ways are also a part of nature, as we of course evolved as we are, we didn't decide to make ourselves intelligent, or creative, or technology creating, its in our "nature" to be this way, in the same way its in a lions "nature" to chase wildebeast. The imperative on the environment is that we fundamentally depend upon a healthy environment for our own existence, without it, we won't prosper as a species, and if we destroy the environment for some short term reason, we will essentially be destroying ourselves, and no one is going to come in and save us if we do.

However, we can no more "return" to some state of innocence, than we can go back in time, (for such a time never existed anyway, man has always had a massive impact on his surroundings, even at the hunter-gatherer stage we were busy wiping out all large mammal opposition, because we could) the only way to deal with the environmental problems we face is to look at them coolly and pragmatically and improve the sustainability of our industries and country's not destroy them, as again, that would result in a disaster at least as bad as the environmental one. Thats not a green light to carry on regardless, we are at a stage where the impact of humanity on our environment is such that we cannot ignore it, but it is also true that a planet with 6 billion humans on it, cannot exist in any other manner than one that is organized and uses technology, any other approach would lead to about 90 percent of humanity starving within 12 months. Not a pleasant prospect.

I think in recent decade there has been a flight from reason and rationality, they have become things that are supposedly sterile and anti-humanist, in fact they are the exact opposites, reason is what makes us human, and also what frees us from the shackles of just a mute existence of eating and procreating, without it we most certainly are lost. Perhaps the tide will turn once again, as there are cycles in human affairs.

[Lulu2]

'Bally...I fear that our "nature" is going to destroy this planet's environment and therefore, kill us all.

I also believe we're an evolutionary "mistake," in that our species will destroy the others.

Once we're gone...it'll be time to begin again.

[Galbally]

Lulu2;500152 wrote: 'Bally...I fear that our "nature" is going to destroy this planet's environment and therefore, kill us all.

I also believe we're an evolutionary "mistake," in that our species will destroy the others.

Once we're gone...it'll be time to begin again.


You may be right about us eventually destroying ourselves Lu, but then its hardly surprising as all species go extinct eventually, its just a question of when. We have become such a dominant species so quickly (we are the most dominating species that has ever existed actually) that it may be inevitable that such a rapid ascent will result in a very rapid decline, its hard to tell from where we are. As for the evolutionary mistake, well if it is the case, then its not our fault as again, we didn't get to decide upon the matter.

[BTS]

Accountable;499522 wrote: too long for me to read before I go to work. Can you give a synopsis?


Sure his last paragraph sums er up...... better than i ca.





Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if

we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the

Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild

prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a

good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the

religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism,

and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

[Lulu2]

Well, if we ever ADOPTED the "religion" of environmentalism....I missed it.

[BTS]

Lulu2;500131 wrote: "Save it from WHAT and for WHO I ask?"



++++++++++ Have you ever been to the Amazon? Have you ever flown over Borneo? No? Then don't ask.



If you've never seen the devastation which comes from deforestation of rainforest...you can't imagine the deep disturbance it creates in your soul.



SAVE IT FOR THE WORLD!


You missed my point did not you?



"Save it from WHAT and for WHO I ask?"



I love the way you change the point to something other than I was talking about......

This was in regards to MY country and stewardship (as you brought up stewardship in the FIRST place!!)



Was I talking about deforestation? NO!

My country has MORE trees than before the first white man set foot on it, Yet America is ALWAYS made out as the BAD guy on enviromental issues in the world view.





And you ask, have I been to Borneo or the Amazon.........? No

But I was raised on the outback of my great country and know nature and care about its furture just as much as any zealot in the enviromental movement, if not more.

We have the BEST stewards of the land in world here and I am proud that I

was from a family that made its mark on the American Dream and passed the land on in better shape than they found it...

[BTS]

Lulu2;500152 wrote: 'Bally...I fear that our "nature" is going to destroy this planet's environment and therefore, kill us all.



I also believe we're an evolutionary "mistake," in that our species will destroy the others.



Once we're gone...it'll be time to begin again.


Spoken like a true believer in the Church of the Environmentalist

[Lulu2]

"a true believer"....

Hogwash.

[BTS]

Lulu2;500195 wrote: "a true believer"....



Hogwash.
I also believe we're an evolutionary "mistake," in that our species will destroy the others.

[RedGlitter]

When you pull on a strand it affects the entire web.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;500211 wrote: When you pull on a strand it affects the entire web.
And the spider fixes it........ as soon as you quit your pulling

Right?



My country is trending down on their emissions and trying to fix the web.

[RedGlitter]

Sometimes, if irreparable damage hasn't been done.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;500234 wrote: Sometimes, if irreparable damage hasn't been done.


Show us ALL irreparable damage ............. If there is?

[RedGlitter]

BTS;500242 wrote: Show us ALL irreparable damage ............. If there is?




How about the extinction of passenger pigeons to start with? Just as one species. We keep losing more and more species in part because of our ways. I call that damage that cannot be repaired.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;500314 wrote: How about the extinction of passenger pigeons to start with? Just as one species. We keep losing more and more species in part because of our ways. I call that damage that cannot be repaired.


So how many extinctions happened b-4 man was here?

Millions????

More???

How many after man was here?

How many species are on earth and the % lost since man arrived?

Quite small I think..





Not to take away from the fact that any species eliminated is not a good thing but "NATURE happens" and man is not the result of All extinctions.



Just look..........



ALMOST 440,000,000 YEARS AGO, some 85% of marine animal species were wiped out in the Earth's first known mass extinction. Roughly 73,000,000 years later, lane quantities of fish and. 70% of marine invertebrates perished in a second major extinction event. Then, about 245,000,000 years ago, up to 95% of all animals were lost in what is thought to be the worst extinction in history. Approximately 37,000,000 years hence, yet another mass extinction took a toll primarily on sea creatures, but also some land animals. Finally, 65,000,000 years ago, three-quarters of all species--including the dinosaurs--were eliminated

[RedGlitter]

I'm not sure of your point, BTS. Obviously I have no way of knowing the answer to your first question but then neither would you.



Also, I didnot say extinctions were ALL the fault of man...but most are. I think that matters.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;500359 wrote: I'm not sure of your point, BTS. Obviously I have no way of knowing the answer to your first question but then neither would you.



Also, I didnot say extinctions were ALL the fault of man...but most are. I think that matters.




OK point be.............



MILLONS of species died out b-4- man was EVER here.... So how can "Most" extinctions be his (OUR) fault?



How many extinctions occured after man?

I dunno but I bet you can tell us all?

I'll also bet it is WAY less than b-4 we arrived........

[Accountable]

BTS;500157 wrote: Sure his last paragraph sums er up...... better than i ca.





Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if

we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the

Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild

prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a

good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the

religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism,

and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.
Thanks, BTS. Meet fellow libertarian, Lulu.



Lulu, fellow libertarian BTS.



Ain't it horrible how we libertarians always walk in lockstep?

[BTS]

Accountable;500487 wrote: Thanks, BTS. Meet fellow libertarian, Lulu.



Lulu, fellow libertarian BTS.



Ain't it horrible how we libertarians always walk in lockstep?
Sorry ACC.............

Missed this post today........

Hello Lulu.

[RedGlitter]

BTS;500376 wrote: OK point be.............



MILLONS of species died out b-4- man was EVER here.... So how can "Most" extinctions be his (OUR) fault?



How many extinctions occured after man?

I dunno but I bet you can tell us all?

I'll also bet it is WAY less than b-4 we arrived........


A bit salty tonight, eh?

No, I cannot tell you....can you tell us?

[BTS]

RedGlitter;501861 wrote: A bit salty tonight, eh?

No, I cannot tell you....can you tell us?








I'll try Red.........

From Wikapedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event



Since 1500 AD, 698 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

And that is probably about right..........



But the wackos just have to add this, with NO basis or facts..:



However, since most extinctions are likely to go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the last century, between 20,000 and two million species have become extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating.



OK......

sheesh from 698 documented to two million.......... Is that a stretch? or what?

That is my WHOLE point on the wacko environmentalist church of nature.



So my answer to you is From 1500-present is 698



But now in North America we fared better than the others.....



North America



During the last 50 thousand years, including the end of the last ice age, approximately 33 genera of large mammals have become extinct in North America.



When was the LAST extinction in the world..........??

Years and YEARS ago but to listen to the naysayers we kill off about 20 a day and NEVER look back........

[Accountable]

BTS;501869 wrote:



I'll try Red.........

From Wikapedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event



Since 1500 AD, 698 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

And that is probably about right..........



But the wackos just have to add this, with NO basis or facts..:



However, since most extinctions are likely to go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the last century, between 20,000 and two million species have become extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating.



OK......

sheesh from 698 documented to two million.......... Is that a stretch? or what?

That is my WHOLE point on the wacko environmentalist church of nature.



So my answer to you is From 1500-present is 698



But now in North America we fared better than the others.....



North America



During the last 50 thousand years, including the end of the last ice age, approximately 33 genera of large mammals have become extinct in North America.



When was the LAST extinction in the world..........??

Years and YEARS ago but to listen to the naysayers we kill off about 20 a day and NEVER look back........Oh ye of little faith. :rolleyes:

[RedGlitter]

I'm not so sure it's a stretch. While I wouldn't bank on those figures, it only make sense to me that in 1500 and such times, we didn't have the human habitation we have now, ie: clearing land for major cities, pollution, toxins, and what not. We tended to live with nature instead of against it.

[Lulu2]

Many people like to point out that, in fact, thw world has seen many natural extinctions over time--some nearly global.

However, the extinctions which environmentalists are rightly concerned with are the direct result of human activity and lack of concern.

There's a big difference and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "religion." It's a viable concern about the ignorant idea that we don't need and needn't care about these species.

When natural disasters occur, we do everything we can to save life of all types. How much more do we owe our fellow species if WE have caused the disasters?

[Accountable]

BTS;500174 wrote: [...]

But I was raised on the outback of my great country and know nature and care about its furture just as much as any zealot in the enviromental movement, if not more.

We have the BEST stewards of the land in world here and I am proud that I

was from a family that made its mark on the American Dream and passed the land on in better shape than they found it...
Lulu2;502371 wrote: Many people like to point out that, in fact, thw world has seen many natural extinctions over time--some nearly global.



However, the extinctions which environmentalists are rightly concerned with are the direct result of human activity and lack of concern.



There's a big difference and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "religion." It's a viable concern about the ignorant idea that we don't need and needn't care about these species.



When natural disasters occur, we do everything we can to save life of all types. How much more do we owe our fellow species if WE have caused the disasters?
Ah, it's good when we agree. :-6

[Lulu2]

(I'm glad we agree, Accountable...next time you quote me...would you fix my typos? Thanks awfully.

Love,

Monica Myopia)

[Galbally]

The point is that nature works through the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, not via public policy, political opinion, or religious ideas, and ever was it thus (even if we didn't exactly realize that truth). Environmentalists who "worship" the environment and think that they will be somehow rewarded by nature for it are as foolish as politicians who think that their speeches or clever arguments are going to stop the oceans and the winds, or religious leaders who think that petitioning the almighty with piety and good intentions will matter one whit.

I think (as usual) that if you read Shakespeare (King Lear), he has already dealt with the philosophical aspects of all this 350 years ago, and better than any of us.

[Lulu2]

Hmmm...I don't see it as nature "rewarding" us (nor do I know anyone who does.) I see it as self-preservation of the earth as one entity. (Which, in fact, it is.)

Tell me about Lear, 'Bally. Please.

[Galbally]

Lulu2;502398 wrote: Hmmm...I don't see it as nature "rewarding" us (nor do I know anyone who does.) I see it as self-preservation of the earth as one entity. (Which, in fact, it is.)

Tell me about Lear, 'Bally. Please.


Lear was maddened by the harshness of this world and his impotence in the face of it, so he decided to address the ocean during a storm, to command the tide to retreat, as he was the King of all the men he knew, but the sea does not listen to any man, be he king or pauper, noble or base, alive or dead. That is the truth that Lear discovered.

[Galbally]

Lulu2;502398 wrote: Hmmm...I don't see it as nature "rewarding" us (nor do I know anyone who does.) I see it as self-preservation of the earth as one entity. (Which, in fact, it is.)

Tell me about Lear, 'Bally. Please.


I wasn't reffering to you lu, the earth is indeed one thing, complete within itself, and also one with the rest of the universe, which is one large interaction of matter and energy. However, it is not inviolable, and we can manipulate our environment to our benefit or ruin (as we always have), which one we choose is up to us. That is our unique and greatest gift, and also our fate for good or ill.

[Lulu2]

Thanks for the second thought....I've no recollection of poor Lear as an environmentalist! :wah:

[BTS]

RedGlitter;502047 wrote: I'm not so sure it's a stretch. While I wouldn't bank on those figures, it only make sense to me that in 1500 and such times, we didn't have the human habitation we have now, ie: clearing land for major cities, pollution, toxins, and what not. We tended to live with nature instead of against it.




So you say,



"I'm not so sure it's a stretch."



This was in reply to this that I posted:



"sheesh from 698 documented to two million.......... Is that a stretch? or what?"





So show why it is not a stretch???



Show me documatation and not this style of MEALY mouthed suppositions here:

"However, since most extinctions are likely to go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the last century, between 20,000 and two million species have become extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating."



This is exactly why environmentalist are not taken seriously......

And with statements like this, why would ANYONE agree?



And I ask........ Name ONE extinction this year.......... if on the LOWER end there are 140,000 a year that should be quite simple.........

[RedGlitter]

For me it's not that unfathomable because we're asked to take in account that these alleged numbers happened over approximately six centuries. A very long time. As I stated before, there are many modern factors helping extinction that are created by us, to be taken into account. Simply put, our way of life.



I can't provide you documentation and I'm no scientist. I do read from time to time about species of animals we didn't even hardly know existed, being cancelled out. I don't question that, I've no reason to. I am just a firm believer in the spider web theory. That may be a religious aspect or it may just be good sense.

[BTS]

RedGlitter;505170 wrote: For me it's not that unfathomable because we're asked to take in account that these alleged numbers happened over approximately six centuries. A very long time. As I stated before, there are many modern factors helping extinction that are created by us, to be taken into account. Simply put, our way of life.



I can't provide you documentation and I'm no scientist. I do read from time to time about species of animals we didn't even hardly know existed, being cancelled out. I don't question that, I've no reason to. I am just a firm believer in the spider web theory. That may be a religious aspect or it may just be good sense.


KOOL RedGlitter



So you do not know the last extinction by man? I understand because it was quite some time ago.

How about global warming? You want this guy below to support your feelings on the subject? What a crock.



You REALLY agree with this statement below?

Also:

My reply was is in REGARDS to the LAST century not the last 600 as you stated (see below):

(I ask What scientists say this below?)



"However, since most extinctions are likely to go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the last century, between 20,000 and two million species have become extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating."

[BTS]

Diuretic;505488 wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 821155.htm



This isn't about ideology, it's about prudence.


So this supports 20,000 to 2,000,000 extintions in the last 100 years.......?



Shhesh show me only 20....... since 1907

[nvalleyvee]

Soooo what about the new species that have been found.

[BTS]

nvalleyvee;506964 wrote: Soooo what about the new species that have been found.


KOOL.......

So there are new species? Tell us all about them. This is GOOD news......

Nobody can name the extinct but you claim we have NEW.........



Show me baby.......

[nvalleyvee]

There are some distinct forests that have produced some already thought to be extinct species of mammals and the ocean have produced at least one GIANT FROM THE DEEP. The world offers up some creatures that just should not be here. Go figure.

We think we have this planet figured out........NOT!!!

[Singh-Song]

'New Species?' Think about it. These species we're only discovering now, it isn't because they've only just evolved! How many species do you think are dying out before we've even discovered them? Who are you going to who how many there were in the first place if you're constantly wiping them out without taking a look? And just the plain number of species that die out isn't the whole story. When European settlers eradicated the Passenger Pigeon, one single species, they wiped out 40% of all the birds in America, around 10% of all the birds in the world at the time. And more than 90% of land animals are insects- animals which the modern intensive farming that the developed world uses to further engorge itself makes it sole purpose, through modern pesticides, TO eradicate from the face of the earth...

[BTS]

Singh-Song;652163 wrote: 'New Species?' Think about it. These species we're only discovering now, it isn't because they've only just evolved! How many species do you think are dying out before we've even discovered them? Who are you going to who how many there were in the first place if you're constantly wiping them out without taking a look? And just the plain number of species that die out isn't the whole story. When European settlers eradicated the Passenger Pigeon, one single species, they wiped out 40% of all the birds in America, around 10% of all the birds in the world at the time. And more than 90% of land animals are insects- animals which the modern intensive farming that the developed world uses to further engorge itself makes it sole purpose, through modern pesticides, TO eradicate from the face of the earth...


Singh-Song;652163 wrote:

How many species do you think are dying out before we've even discovered them?...


Sounds just like the "Enviro Religion" spiel with NO facts again.





Singh-Song......... I ask you?

How many do you think are dying out? (with facts) And WHY might they might be dying?



I challenge you to do a Google of:

"documented extinctions USA"

and show us ALL if any extinctions have occurred during your lifetime..........



Remember the sky is falling and man is destroying our planet.............

So prove it.......OK?