• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man: The Real Endangered Species

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Man: The Real Endangered Species

    Something to think about: Could this happen to you? Ottawa has just passed similar Species Protection laws which will make this quite possible in Canada too.

    Released: July 24, 2001

    Endangered Species Act Destroying Farmers' and Man's Rights in Klamath Basin

    Man: The Real Endangered Species
    By Glenn Woiceshyn

    Oregon farmers in the Klamath Basin are being forced into extinction. This summer the federal government orchestrated a massive drought that destroyed their crops, necessitated a sell-off of livestock, converted fertile soil into blowing dust, and drove many farmers into bankruptcy and states of depression. To date about $400 million in damages has been inflicted on what was once a productive farming community with roughly 1,400 farmers and 240,000 acres of land.
    Why? It seems that environmentalists want the land restored to its original, desiccated, "natural" state. So, this spring, they "persuaded" the Bureau of Reclamation to use the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) to cut off the water that these farmers normally receive—and desperately need—from the Klamath Irrigation Project (near the Oregon-California border), in the name of protecting "endangered" sucker fish and salmon.
    The endangered farmers requested an injunction to restore irrigation flows; but U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken effectively fed them to the fish: "Threats to the continued existence of endangered and threatened species constitute ultimate harm."
    Recently, the desperate farmers engaged in "civil disobedience" by running a makeshift pipeline to the reservoir, but the feds halted their efforts even though the reservoir now has more water than needed to "protect" the fish. The Bush Administration has the authority to grant exemptions to the ESA and restore irrigation immediately, but declined, apparently because of fear of reprisal from the powerful environmentalist legal machine.
    This vicious government assault on Oregon farmers is but one of countless examples of the ESA being used to block productive activities—i.e., activities beneficial to people—such as farming, mining, forestry, and hydroelectric power. The Northern Spotted Owl became famous when timber production was virtually halted in the Northwest to protect the species. Near Bakersfield, California, a farmer was arrested in 1994 by Fish and Wildlife officers for inadvertently killing five Tipton kangaroo rats while plowing his own field. His tractor and plow were seized as "murder weapons." Under the ESA, he faced heavy fines and three years in prison. Most recently, the ESA was used by environmentalists to block power generation in the Northwest, thereby contributing to the costly blackouts wreaking havoc on Californians.
    What motivates environmentalists to protect "endangered" species with so much zeal that they are oblivious to the harm inflicted on people?
    Some environmentalists assert that "species diversity" is extremely beneficial to man. But environmentalists are the staunchest opponents of genetic engineering—which has vast potential for creating new species. Some environmentalists assert that an endangered species could possess medical secrets beneficial to man. But, in 1991, when taxol—processed from the Pacific yew tree—was discovered to be highly effective in treating certain forms of cancer, environmentalists blocked harvesting of the yew tree. Whenever man's needs conflict with the "interests of nature," environmentalists take the side of nature.
    The real motive behind environmentalism is stated by David Graber (a biologist with the U.S. National Park Service): "We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body, or a billion of them."
    This "intrinsic value" ethic means that man must value nature—not for any benefit to man, but because nature is somehow a value in and of itself. Hence, nature must be kept pristine despite the harm this causes man. We must halt activities beneficial to us, such as farming, forestry, and the treatment of cancer, in order to safeguard fish, birds, trees, and rats.
    Throughout history, people were told to sacrifice their lives to God, the community, the state, or the Fuhrer—all with deadly consequences. Now we are being told to sacrifice our lives to nature. And current environmental legislation, such as the ESA, provides government with massive powers to enforce such sacrifices. What disasters could such power lead to?
    Some environmentalists have expressed their wish. "Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature," writes biologist Graber, "some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." City University of New York philosophy professor Paul Taylor adds: "[T]he ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good Riddance.'"
    While extreme, these anti-human sentiments are logically consistent with environmentalism's "intrinsic value" philosophy: Since man survives only by conquering nature, man is an inherent threat to the "intrinsic value" of nature and must therefore be eliminated. Environmentalism makes man the endangered species.
    The only antidote to these haters of mankind and their anti-human philosophy is to uphold man's right to pursue his own life by means of his productive activities. Congress should begin the process of rescinding the ESA and any environmental legislation that allows government to sacrifice people to nature.
    As for the Klamath farmers, we should urge the Bush Administration to stand up to environmentalists and use its authority to restore irrigation immediately, and do so in the name of man's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Otherwise, today it's the Klamath farmers—tomorrow it's the rest of us.
    Source: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/manendangeredspecies.shtml

    #2
    For me living on the edge of a national park this is an issue I always have in the back of my mind.

    Comment


      #3
      There are all kinds of environmentalists. There are the nuts who see man as just another animal, with no more value than a rat or a virus. When it fact he is Gods' ultimate creation. The world was created for man not the other way around! There are also "environmentalists" who quietly go about everyday doing what is right for the environment. They are called farmers and ranchers!! It is just wonderful to rant and rave about nature but who supplies the habitat for all these wild animals? I believe there are very few farmers who don't take an interest in the flora and fauna on their land. Environmentalists need to put their money where their mouth is!
      Unfortunately in our secular society nature has become a God for many people. So that they don't see the devine nature of their fellow man. God gave us this earth, and all that is in it, to use. Not to abuse it but to use it for our needs. And it will last just as long as it is necessary.

      Comment


        #4
        I agree wholeheartedly cowman. Those highly educated and highly paid professionals that governments listen too will have to start putting their money where there mouth is. They have caused nothing but hardship for the poorer people in this world. A classic example is the way they have needlessly condemned the trapping of furs without any regard for the native trapper that got most of his living from the trapping and selling of furs. They should have to take responsibility for their actions and help to supplement the incomes of those people that they have affected by those actions.

        Comment


          #5
          Cowman you are an animal, If you think that man is the ultimate creation you haven't been away from home very far.

          All human beings including environmentalist just like all the other living things are a part of mother nature, which is God. An I aggree it will last as long as is neccessary to satisfy our ever wanting need to destroy it all.

          Comment


            #6
            There is a name for people who think "mother nature" is God. They are called Pagans. Which is okay; we are all entitled to our own view.
            I wonder what you would call the "ultimate creation"? Or is there no part of creation that is above any other? If that is true then you fit right in with the concept that a virus or a rat has as much value as yourself! Is this what you believe?
            How do you see us destroying our world? Are you an active participant? Would you rather save little owls and wolves than starving children? I'm truly interested in your views on this as I don't know many pagans?

            Comment


              #7
              You got it right Kernel. Humans are animals. Unfortunately we are animals that act like uncontrolled viruses, driven to take over and destroy our environment until it kills us too. We take more than we need to live, we pollute our water, air and soil in the name of private commerce. The earth is like a vulnerable woman and in the name of progress, we allow it to be ****d daily for profit, like pimps. We have a brain that can plan ahead and we do in the short-term, as long as we can make a profit. We don't seem to be so good at planning for the wellbeing of future generations. Our brain was created so that we can see the different choices, the different paths that we can travel, that will lead to peace and sustainability for everyone. We belong to the earth, the earth does not belong to us. We were supposed to TEND the garden so that the garden can remain as healthy as it was when we inherited it In The Beginning. We haven't been responsible stewards of the Garden of Eden and we are constantly being booted out of the garden (e.g. Walkerton, global warming,loss of topsoil, effects of pesticides on human hormones)because of our willful disregard for nature. Remember, God made nature first. The Garden was God's first creation and humans were an afterthought and people have caused the creator of Paradise so much grief. We go into deserts and insist on rerouting rivers to change the nature of God's creation. We do not adapt to the earth, we willfully insist on perverting the earth and twisting it into OUR vision of perfection, not God's.

              Fortunately, most educated humans are becoming aware of our sin of egotism, self-importance and greed and are recycling, turning away from using poisons on plants and animals, growing community gardens and supporting farmer's markets, calling for a return to the concept of "the best things in life are free" and support of greenhouse gas reduction.

              Kernel, it is hard to talk sense to the other writers on this site. They lump together any defender of nature as "envrionmentalists" which to them is a dirty word, or we're "nuts". They fear defenders of creation because they haven't figured out that to protect the earth is to protect all the animals, including humans.

              To say environmentalists hate humans is an insult to the highest degree. Most environmentalists I know are huge defenders of peace, justice and all those things that Jesus stood for -- the social gospel. Environmentalists are compassionate toward the wildlife and the human animals. We can make our living from the earth and do it in sustainable ways but only if we drop our antagonistic attitude towards God's creation. Nature is not "God". Nature is God's NATURE. Nature shows us what God is like. God is the life energy which makes the world go round and life go on.

              Comment


                #8
                Well all of a sudden like usual a discussion has turned into the usual black and white right and wrong type arguement that we all have to make our point no matter what. In the end the point of this whole exercise is being missed that we all have to exist in this world and we have to make sure that some way or the other that we all can exist and make a living in this world. That means that we have to find away to coexist with all the living organisms in this world.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yes I think we would be best to leave theology alone. To each his own belief.
                  I would question co-existing? I believe we should not co-exist with AIDS, ebola, polio, malaria etc. but should do everything in our power to eradicate these scourges. It is all very well to say these diseases control the population....unless you or yours are the ones being controlled? Maybe all the environmentalists should go get a shot of malaria! After all this disease has rights too!
                  I would like to see environmentalists explain to the mother of a dying child how natural and necessary these diseases are. I'm sure that would make her feel so much better. Maybe she needs higher education to appreciate "mother nature"?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I wonder if I can add a little different perspective to this debate.

                    I remember one of my first microbiology labs. The S shaped growth curve. A few bacteria are plated in a petri dish with lots of nutrients. Reproduction and growth occurs at an exponential rate until the environment (petri dish) becomes depleted of nutrients and fouled with dead bacteria and by-products, when the population is reduced to zero. The concept of the S shaped growth curve can be applied to any biological system with similar results. If populations cannot expand into new areas, or otherwise replentish and refurbish their environment, the ability to find food and dispose of waste becomes a limiting factor, and the 'nest is fouled' and the population dies. This is of course complicated by the fact that this excercise is being repeated by all living organisms in any given area. Nature is not benevolent in the short term. It is only when looking at the big picture you see that the death of one organism provides food and sustenance for another.

                    Man has a unique ability, I think, as Deb has said to try to tend the garden in order to control this natural cycle of reproduction, growth, depletion and death, in order to benefit a larger population. However, man also has the ability, unique among animals, of wreaking more havoc than any other organism, some of which is under the guise of progress. I agree that greed and power are most often the cause.
                    The fact that north americans consume something like 80% of the worlds resources is disconcerting to say the least.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      While not disagreeing with the thought behind the above statement I would question the figure of 80% for north America? I mean europe has probably as large a population and they don't exactly deny themselves all the little luxeries? And then there is Japan and the wealthy asian countries?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Dont think the exact percentage really matters, cowman, we dont act much different over here and that is a fact.

                        The idea that we are in control is the bit that always makes me smile.

                        If we just did this or that or didnt do something else every thing would be better.

                        Would it be better to farm less intensivlly but need a much larger land area cultivated?
                        Can animals be happy? Is an animal protected from nature, ie fed watered and protected from predators, farmed happier than one in the wild?

                        If any part of nature is out of balance it must be to numbers of people.

                        Are we really any different to the microbes in the dish?
                        Have we any choice but to fill every available space and feed ourselves to extinction?
                        99% of what has lived on earth is already extinct today.

                        Where are we on our S curve?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          All very interesting, but when you have all said your piece. It sounds like to me that Mother nature is God and that we are here to survive not worship.

                          But don't get me wrong Cowman, I'am prayering that your saddle sores stop effecting your mental capablities.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            This is a very interesting topic and it looks like most people read the Bible.
                            The bible was written in a way that one can intrepid it in many ways to support the individual thoughts and beliefs and this statement is proven by simply counting 15 churches in our little city of 15000 people. Also some churches have revised parts of the bible thinking that it discriminated against some people. So we can assume that most physical things can be changed by force or willingness, but ones beliefs are the property of the beholder.

                            I think that (Mother Nature, God) controls the planet and here is proof.

                            Let us start with the lion, “king of all beasts,” he marks out his territory where he kills other helpless animals to feed himself and his family, that is what it takes to survive.
                            Now other bigger stronger male lions come into his domain and challenge his position and overpower him, not only take over his domain, but also kill his offsprings.
                            So we can say the first part was necessary to survive and the other was extremes to prove their power and can do whatever they want.
                            Now Mother Nature sees the lion has too much power so she controls him with drought, floods, fire and or diseases and destroys his easy food supplies and then he has to struggle to survive.

                            Man thinks he is the king of the planet and so he is until he goes to extremes and that is where Mother Nature, God steps in to control his behavior, and there are many clues to support this idea.

                            Man marked his boundaries and took control of all things in his country and called himself king, things were fine until he went to extremes and started to abuse people.
                            The people rebelled and throw him out of power and chose or elected a new leader.
                            Some countries thought they were stronger and could take over other countries, but found that people don’t like extremists so more countries got together and declared war against the intruder, destroyed him and all the things he cherished.
                            So when man goes to extremes and starts to abuse things and thinks he is in control, Mother Nature, God sees this, and controls him with tornados, hurricanes, fires, drought, floods, earthquakes, disease and starvation. All this tells man that extremists will not survive.

                            To prove a point that extremists will never control the planet, because majority of the good people will not let them and are supported by( Mother Nature, God). So lets live and do what it takes to survive but not go to extremes to changes things.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I have been trying to find the quote on utilization of world resources. I think David Korten's book "When Corporations Rule the World" contains a very good chapter on this but I do not have my copy at home. It is quite possible that it was referring to the 'western world' or so-called developed nations.
                              Another quote from an anthropology source Bodley: Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems c.1996 "..it appears that by 1970, although their population contributed only about 6 percent of the worlds's total annual production, Americans consumed some 40 percent of the world's total annual production, and 35 percent of the world's energy (Cook 1971)." in 1994, on the other hand "China virtually reversed the figures, with 20 percent of the world population consuming 8 percent of the commercial energy".

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...