Rant against radical environmentalist

I am sorry for the ranting post, but I just finished reading some quotes from some of the more radical environmentalist sites, like:
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

Well, I for one can't stand for the coldness of these "happy people". If Dave, or Reed had their way, then they wouldn't have to worry about it, would they? They would be dead too.

I am a human. We have fought a long and bloody battle to survive and recently (in world timelines) get to the top of the food chain. I want to stay there. I believe that if I have to destroy the only known colony of flying armadillos to save just one human, then get out the video camera to record the last days of the flying armadillo.

We can work to achieve a balance, and preserve the species that we can, but humans take precedent. People like Dave, or Reed and the others with the same philosophy needn't worry much; the violence of nature will take back this planet the day that we are done. In 5 billion years, or so, the earth will meet the same fate no matter what impact mankind has on this planet. All we can do, is concentrate on improving the quality of life for as many humans as possible, conserving some of our resources for our children, and let them run with it. Then, repeat.

Environmental Fascism

There are so many people out there that resent people that take personal responsibility for themselves and their surroundings. It has been that way throughout history. It springs from an elitist attitude that believes that we are all much less intelligent than they are, or we would be sitting in the coffee shop sipping a $12 frozen crappichino too.

Instead, the rest of us are out there making a difference in our jobs, families and our surroundings every day. We are taking responsibility to better ourselves and our environment. We are just making decisions that make sense to the people we are fiscally responsible for (our families, our shareholders, etc.).

The elitist want everyone else to do something. If you notice, most did not earn their own wealth, it was inherited, or acquired through doing something they like (i.e. acting), and as an ancillary thing from what they crave (adoration), they got paid. Yet, we do not see them doing (purchasing EVs, converting their mansions to Solar, etc.) much except telling the rest of us to fix things and asking the people that work for a living to give up the small luxuries we enjoy. They do seem happy to write a check to ease the guilt in the form of Carbon Credits. If they would take responsibility, they would lead the way by demanding more efficient jets and they would push the leading edge for electric cars, nuclear, solar, wind, and other power generation technologies.

Alas, it is up to us, the mainstream consumer, to make decisions on the environment. We could benefit from being a little cleaner. By removing our dependence on foreign oil, we could take back more power and further drive the jealousy of the rest of the world. I am for that. I like being the country that has the most freedom and I am willing to do whatever it takes to give us more. I am not ashamed of the "bigger, better, faster, more" mentality because I think it drives innovation, efficiency and economy.

I think that the American public has heard enough to spot the fads and will start to take them with a grain of salt. We will learn to be cleaner for our own sake, not for the latest "sky is falling" campaign.

Human Environmental Impact

You see, we are living in harmony with nature, in the same way any other animal does. We have created and destroyed many ecosystems through our own habits. Just as other species have done.

We do have what seems to be a large demand on the environment, yet when we need something, we seem to find a way to make it. We would have exhausted cattle a long time ago, if we depended on natural, free roaming cattle. The same would be said about most of our food crops. We would have definitely "over grazed", but we do seem to have the unique ability to grow stuff. We grow the animals and plants we desire in ever increasing efficiency.

As for winning the gold as a species, it is an ongoing game. We either continue existing in first place, or we loose. However, the natural resources we consume can be replaced, or regrown. We can change how much waste we leave behind, when it becomes a proven problem. I also believe that the awareness of our large waste levels (or, untapped resources as I like to call them), is the only good thing that comes from the latest "sky is falling" fad such as "global warming".

If we don't work harder on space research and tracking near earth objects, we won't have to worry for too much longer. The next ELE (extinction level event) object is already on a path that leads to us, it is just a question of when. But, we also have the ability to prevent that, if we weren't concentrating so much on the latest environmental fad.

Bottom line, we need to do better at renewing our waste and being more efficient. But, we also need to balance those efforts with the desire to feed and transport our population and prepare for its continued growth.

Wrong Again

Was browsing for radical quotes, while I found some that made me angry, here are a few from rightwingnews.com that I got a great laugh from:

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb 1968

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

About Global Warming

Global climate is always in a state of flux. In the short time that humans have occupied this planet, we have enjoyed a relatively temperate environment. But, one would assume that the climate would continue its shift between extremely cold, and rather hot, just as it would if we were not here.

So, when the temperature rises, there will be changes we will all need to make. We just don't know the impacts yet. Many of the global warming pundits simply think that the whole world will turn into a desert. I do not agree with that assumption, since the climate on a global scale is misunderstood and underestimated. Fossils and other archeological evidence suggests that there were an abundance of rain forests and tropical environments the last time the temperature was high, so I think it likely to cause the same effect should the climate return to that state.

I am most afraid that the global warming alarmists want to do something. There are some who want to dump large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. I worry about these "solutions" to try to control such a large natural phenomenon. These attempts to change the natural state of global climate could have disastrous affects on the planet.

Don't get me wrong, I believe we should be more responsible with our resources. This should be a no-brainer that the more people we have to support, the more efficient we need to be. But to believe that a group of beings that inhabit perhaps 10% of the total surface of the planet, could affect the global climate is a far stretch.

RE: Rant against Radical Environmentalist

I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Forman, Dr. Reed and other such radical environmentalists would stand behind their philosophies if it came down to either THEM or the Flying Armadillos making it to the next round. Humans have the unique capacity to consider the needs of other species and develop ways to ensure their continued existence. I, for one, do not want to rely on the Leatherback Turtle to show me how to survive, in spite the fact that they survived catastrophic asteroid impacts and outlived the dinosaur. Now that they are finally facing extinction, who is helping to protect them? Humans. We as a race have done a lot to prevent an extinction that would have happened had we not been here and aware of the species around us.