Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The End Is Nigh, Again
Reason ^ | 6/26/02 | Ronald Bailey

Posted on 06/26/2002 7:11:51 AM PDT by WindMinstrel

The End Is Nigh, Again

Environmentalists insist that humanity really has overshot the earth’s carrying capacity this time.

By Ronald Bailey

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

The United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development is coming up at the end of August, so expect to see a spate of news stories warning that humanity is on an unsustainable economic path. To bolster this notion, environmentalists are positioning their views to make it easy for the press to echo them.

In an article published this week by the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of environmentalists led by Mathis Wackernagel of Redefining Progress claim that human consumption and waste production have overshot the earth’s capacity to create new resources and absorb waste. They calculate that "humanity’s load corresponded to 70% of the biosphere’s capacity in 1961," and "this percentage grew to 120% in 1999." They explain that "20% overshoot means that it would require 1.2 earths, or one earth 1.2 years, to regenerate what humanity used in 1999."

Such worries about overpopulation and resource scarcity have a long history. The Roman writer Tertullian warned in 200 A.D. that "we men have actually become a burden to the earth" and that "the fruits of nature hardly suffice to support us." In 1798 the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he claimed that population growth would always outstrip food supplies, inevitably resulting in famine, pestilence, and war. Biologist Paul Ehrlich notoriously updated Malthus’ gloomy predictions in his 1968 book The Population Bomb, which predicted that hundreds of millions of people would die of famine in the 1970s.

Well, are the alarmists right this time around? Is the end finally nigh? No.

Wackernagel et al. focus their analysis of how humanity uses the biosphere on six areas: growing crops, grazing animals, harvesting timber, fishing, building infrastructure, and getting energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power. According to their own calculations, humanity has not exceeded the biosphere’s capacity in the first five of these areas, although they say we are close to the limits for growing crops and fishing. This leaves fossil fuels and nuclear energy, which they claim account for fully half of humanity’s biosphere use. By their account, then, humanity would be using only 60 percent of the biosphere’s capacity if energy use weren’t a problem.

To estimate our impact on the biosphere, Wackernagel et al. calculate an average of how many hectares it takes to support each person. The reason energy use figures so prominently in their calculations is that they are looking at how many hectares it would take to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. Their concern is that burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which traps heat, which leads to global warming.

These calculations embody an ideal of stasis, both ecological and economic. What the authors miss is that for every one of the six areas they are looking at humanity’s ecological footprint probably is going to become smaller, not larger, during this century.

Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, believes the 21st century will see the beginning of a "Great Restoration" as humanity’s productive activities increasingly withdraw from the natural world. For example, Ausubel and his colleagues calculate, "If the world farmer reaches the average yield of today’s US corn grower during the next 70 years, ten billion people eating as people now on average do will need only half of today’s cropland. The land spared exceeds Amazonia." If 10 billion people choose meat-rich diets in 2070, then farmers will need only 75 percent of today’s cropland. In other words, through technologically improved farming, millions of acres will revert to nature.

With regard to grazing animals, many environmentalists paradoxically oppose intensive meat production that can spare millions of acres. "If you very efficiently produce grain to feed chickens rather than allowing free range cattle," explains Ausubel, "it’s hard to see how you have a problem with increased meat consumption."

Ausubel also notes that "forest regrowth appears part of modernity." He points out that U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization studies "of forest biomass for the decade of the 1990s in the boreal and temperate region in more than 50 countries show the forests expanding in every one of them." As global cropland and grazing area shrink, forests will continue to expand. Ausubel estimates that humanity will need to use 20 percent or less of the world’s 3 billion hectares of forest to sustainably supply all of our wood needs in the 21st century.

"The fish situation is much more difficult," Ausubel cautions. Many fisheries are being harvested at or over their sustainable limits. Ausubel notes that humanity consumes about 800 million tons of animal products--meat and milk--produced on land, compared to 80 million tons caught wild in the oceans. His solution to overfishing? "The ancient sparing of land animals by farming shows us how to spare fish in the sea," he says. "We need to raise the share we farm and lower the share we catch."

Already, 20 percent of seafood is produced by aquaculture that can be expanded in sustainable ways, relieving pressure on wild species such as cod and rockfish. In addition, as Iceland’s and New Zealand’s fisheries show, privatizing fisheries dramatically increases the incentives to conserve and protect wild stocks.

As for infrastructure, Ausubel calculates that if an additional 4 billion people (who are unlikely to materialize, according to the latest U.N. population projections) chose to occupy as much land as the average Californian does today, they would cover 240 million hectares of land, about 2.5 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface.

So we come to Wackernagel et al.’s chief concern: energy use. "Some people try to use the climate change issue as a trump card," says Ausubel. "It sounds like they’re doing that." Keep in mind that despite Wackernagel et al.’s certitude, there are still serious questions about whether adding cabon dioxide to the atmosphere is really causing significant problems for humanity or the biosphere.

Assuming that man-made global warming is a real problem, there are plenty of ways to handle it. One is to deploy technologies we already have to mitigate its effects on humanity: heating, air conditioning, seawalls, irrigation of farmland, crop switching, and so forth. We could also choose to sequester extra carbon dioxide by pumping it back into the ground whence it came, fertilizing the tropic ocean deserts so that they bloom with phytoplankton that absorbs it from the air, or planting more trees.

In any case, Ausubel doesn’t think that carbon dioxide is a long-term problem because the world’s energy system has been inexorably decarbonizing for the past two centuries. His research traces humanity’s steady progress from wood to coal to oil to natural gas and, eventually, to hydrogen. At each stage, consumers, without being commanded to do so by regulators, have chosen fuels containing more hydrogen over fuels containing more carbon.

Ausubel sees that trend continuing until carbon-based fuels are eliminated by the end of the century. He expects that carbon dioxide concentrations, now about 360 parts per million (ppm), will peak at 450 ppm. That is 100 ppm less than the U.N.’s sometimes stated goal of "stabilizing" carbon dioxide at 550 ppm, and it would happen without draconian increases in energy prices or the creation of global bureaucracies aimed at regulating the atmosphere.

So Wackernagel et al. are wrong on every measure they chose to analyze with regard to the future sustainability of the human enterprise. How could they get it so wrong?

"Biologists and ecologists tend to overlook the power of technical progress compounded over the years," says Ausubel. "If you’re trained in ecology and botany, you think of technology as a bulldozer, but what it really is, is efficiency, using less to do more."

Technological progress has already dramatically expanded the carrying capacity of the earth. In the 21st century it will so outpace the increasing demands of a growing and wealthier population that more and more land will revert to nature.

"It looks like over the next 100 years, for most environmental concerns, we will do better," concludes Ausubel. "You get smarter as you get richer."

Ausubel’s own article in the June 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes, "An annual 2-3% progress in consumption and technology over many decades and sectors provides a benchmark for sustainability." In other words, economic growth and technological progress are sustainable in the long run and make it less and less likely that humanity will overshoot any limits the biosphere may have.

Let the Great Restoration begin!

-------------------------------------

Ronald Bailey, Reason's science correspondent, is the editor of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths (Prima Publishing) and Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet(McGraw-Hill).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: enviralists; environment

1 posted on 06/26/2002 7:11:51 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
MathisWackernagel

this is just too easy.

2 posted on 06/26/2002 7:15:06 AM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
lol, hadn't noticed that one -- good catch!
3 posted on 06/26/2002 7:16:15 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
Yeah, between global warming and someone's vision that the New Madrid fault is going to open up soon-- we are doomed, doomed, doomed.
4 posted on 06/26/2002 7:22:29 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
Clara Lou, are you suggesting that the sky really *isn't* falling? My stars!
5 posted on 06/26/2002 7:25:53 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
They calculate that "humanity’s load corresponded to 70% of the biosphere’s capacity in 1961," and "this percentage grew to 120% in 1999." They explain that "20% overshoot means that it would require 1.2 earths, or one earth 1.2 years, to regenerate what humanity used in 1999."

Hmmm. That means that we were 20% in the hole in 1999 alone! Because things never get any better, that means we must also have been at least 20% in the hole in 2000, 2001 and 2002. So, by the end of this year, we'll be 80% in the hole! Shouldn't we have noticed by now that we're almost completely out of resources, we're down to our last 20% of all the oxygen available, and nothing is decomposing anymore because we now need 180% of the available enzymes to do the job?

6 posted on 06/26/2002 7:29:34 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
Read a surprisingly rational post at Dem Underground concerning this article. One of their posters totally dismantles this argument about we're using up the Earth's capacity. Needless to say, not too many people over there had any real argument against facts.

It's worth a read to get some more ammo against the Greenies (it's not long). Human use exhausts Earth

7 posted on 06/26/2002 8:30:08 AM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Wow! That was a nice post at DU-- Fred has way too many brains for that site. He made some excellent points-- to which a dodo bird or two responded.
8 posted on 06/26/2002 9:09:01 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son; WindMinstrel
The "Fred_Fenster" handle at DU was me.

I wrote a much longer set of replies to the same topic in this other DU thread:

http://www.democraticundergrou nd.com/duforum/DCForumID5/2433 3.html

They deleted my handle for my comments in that thread, even though I followed all of the rules in their guildlines.

I followed all of their rules, and I got deleted.

Why did I get deleted?

Because they are afraid of people hearing the truth.

If you dare to mention that the environmental doomsayers' predictions of the 1960s and 1970s were wrong, they will delete your handle. They do not want people to know the truth.

The people who run DU are not interested in a serous discussion of the enviornment. They do not want people to know the truth. That's why they deleted my handle.

I'm a libertarian. I thought I would be accepted at DU. I guess I was wrong.

Thanks for the compliments, Prodigal Son and WindMinstrel.
9 posted on 06/28/2002 3:16:43 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: grundle
I followed all of their rules, and I got deleted.

That is typical of DU, it is run by a bunch of adolescents. Really, I think it's best to simply ignore the site, not worth making an intelligent post which they'll invariably censor...

10 posted on 06/28/2002 3:20:19 PM PDT by EaglesUpForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Thanks for the compliments, Prodigal Son and WindMinstrel.

Hey- no sweat. I knew that Fred couldn't have been a true lefty. But it was refreshing still to have read some sane comments over there. They used to have a fellow that went by the handle of Mike Galos that always posted in their Foreign Affairs/National Security (where they keep their Israel/Palestine debate hidden) who was really sane and just kept beating people down with facts (against the Palestinians) but I note he hasn't been around there in a long time and I figure he got banned.

When I first read your post over there, I thought you must have been using the Skeptical Environmentalist for a source of your info but then you used a different one and I thought that was very clever because citing Bjorn Lomborg would have gotten you busted right away. Was that intentional on your part? Your source (from that post), BTW, I believe Lomborg actually set out to prove that particular person wrong and actually realized the data bore out his claims- if I'm not mistaken- and that's why he wrote Skeptical Environmentalist.

11 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:52 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
I deliberately avoided mentioning Lomborg at first, but I did mention him later on. And yes, most of the people there hate him. But all they do is wage personal attacks on him, and post links to anti-lomborg websites, and copy things from those websites. No one there has ever actually criticized Lomborg in their own words, because they haven't actually read his book.

My link to The Economist with the statistics on increasing food produciton is actually from an article written by Lomborg.

Lomborg did indeed originally set out to prove that Julian Simon was wrong. But when Lomborg examined the facts, he realized that Simon was right. Julian Simon's most famous book is called "The Ultimate Resource 2." He also has a book called "It's Getting Better All The Time."

There are only two regular long term posters at DU who have actually read Lomborg's book, and both of them agree with Lomborg. But I won't mention their handles, because I don't want to put them at risk.

I'm just blown away that they would delete my handle for telling the truth. I was being polite and civil. I wasn't swearing. I followed all of their posting guidelines.

Julian Simon made two predictions for the 21st century before he died:

#1 Things would keep getting better.

#2 People would continue to complain that things were getting worse.
12 posted on 06/28/2002 4:09:17 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Julian Simon made two predictions for the 21st century before he died:
#1 Things would keep getting better.

#2 People would continue to complain that things were getting worse.

Sad but true. But only half sad. On the bright side, things will get better despite the complaining.

Thanks for the info on Simon. I bought the Skeptical Environmentalist and read it a little every night before going to bed. Oddly, it was sort of like browsing Free Republic without the ability to post- I kept wanting to, you know? I'd see a graphic or a stat that was really compelling and I'd want to post "let's see what the enviro nuts have to say about this"- LOL!. I must get copies of the two books you cited from Simon.

13 posted on 06/28/2002 4:30:10 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
A couple other books on the same subject that you might enjoy:

"Earth Report 2000" by Ronald Bailey

"All The Trouble In The World" by P.J. O'Rourke

And if you have children, you might like "Facts Not Fear: How To Teach Your Children About The Environment." I haven't read this book, but a lot of homeschoolers use it.
14 posted on 06/28/2002 4:34:02 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel; brityank; editor-surveyor; madfly
Bump and ping!
15 posted on 06/28/2002 4:45:12 PM PDT by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000; Free the USA; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Libertarianize the GOP; freefly; expose; ...
bump and pinging back! Interesting insight into DU.
16 posted on 06/28/2002 4:54:21 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: madfly; *Enviralists
Thanks for the ping I like Reason magizine
*Index Bump
17 posted on 06/28/2002 5:00:06 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, enviro-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

18 posted on 06/28/2002 5:04:44 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel; blackie; AuntB; MadIvan; farmfriend; Carry_Okie; Jeff Head; SierraWasp; ...
If these enviral whackos believe this scenario, then they should have a massive group suicide like on the 4th of July.

If every enviral in the US and in the world commited suicide to save the planet from global warming, starvation, increased flatus in the ozone, global cooling and other horrors of overpopulation, that would be a great noble sacrifice on their part.

I would glady remember them for 1 second every 4th of July for making the US and the World a better place by offing themselves.

Mathis Wackernagel should set the example and be the first to off himself for the trees, the frogs, the suckerfish, the snail darter, the spotted owl, the Mexican Spotted Owl, the red legged frog, the Scuby Doo beatles that live in Scuby Doo Dung and the Lynx who aren't alive but leave hair in forests they don't live in.

Go ahead Mathis Wackernagel make this miserable world a better place. Quit wasting air!
19 posted on 06/28/2002 5:47:01 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
bttt
20 posted on 06/28/2002 5:51:42 PM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Tailgunner Joe; BOBTHENAILER; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; CedarDave
Mathis Wackernagel, it is time for you to volunteer for Voluntary Extinction like all good enviral Nazis should to save the planet.

Thank you TailGunner Joe for this great art!

21 posted on 06/28/2002 5:54:36 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Another link that you all might want to visit along this line of enviral bs: ( Green Terror: The Misanthropic Roots of The Environmentalist Religion, link)
22 posted on 06/28/2002 5:57:53 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Thanks ;-)
23 posted on 06/28/2002 6:01:14 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Consider faith. Deep Ecologists deny that their body of practices and beliefs constitutes a religion, although they publicly engage in animist and shamanist rituals and speak reverently of Gaia (the "Earth Mother Goddess") as the source of true scientific knowledge:

"Gaian perception connects us with the seamless nature of existence, and opens up a new approach to scientific research based on scientific institutions arising from scientists’ personal, deeply subjective ecological experience. When the young scientist in training has sat on a mountain top, and has completed her first major assignment to ‘think like a mountain’, that is, to dwell and deeply identify with a mountain, mechanistic thinking will never take root in her mind. When she eventually goes out to practise her science in the world, she will be fully aware that every interconnected aspect of it has its own intrinsic value, irrespective of its usefulness to the economic activities of human beings."

– STEPHAN HARDING

Gaia was supposedly a Minoan earth goddess, adopted by a clearly wealthy, and reputedly earth-worshipping and pacifist civilization on Crete. Unfortunately, the popular beliefs about Minoan civilization largely represent the neurotic whimsy of Sir Arthur Evans, the first major excavator at Knossos. Evans was obsessed with proving that Minoan civilization had Aryan origins, and demonstrated a propensity to contort his observations in order to project upon them Druidic beliefs. Current evidence suggests that constantly warring Minoan city-states were overrun by Mycenean Greeks, perhaps after a nearby volcanic eruption. Maybe they had been weakened and their numbers were reduced. They did sometimes eat their children. One thing that we do know: They are no longer with us.

Some Deep Ecologists think that a consequence such as befell the Minoans might not be so bad. Such are adherents to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHMT, pronounced "vehement") or the Church of Euthanasia (whose central tenets are: Abortion, Sodomy, Cannibalism, and Suicide).

If a belief system has a flawed foundation in logic, a codified structure of beliefs, a hierarchy, icons, a personified supernatural deity, and spiritual rites, then it is equivalent to a religion whether it has a 501(c3) or not. If a religious body of belief starts to direct policy, it is equivalent to an establishment of religion capable of confounding all civic deliberation. Perhaps the only thing that keeps deep ecologists from being sued successfully is that they don’t have an office or a bank account.

These folks are on the power curve. Consider greed.

Together, environmental activists and agencies of the United States government have advocated a plan of human withdrawal and ecological inaction over 50% of the continental United States: The Wildlands Project. The plan is to set aside enormous "core reserves" with "connecting corridors" surrounded by "buffer zones." The plan is being enacted over the objections of both landowners and many scientists. The published goal is to institute the plan, as soon as possible, nationwide, based upon the mere assumption that to withdraw human action constitutes preservation of natural resources. There has been no fractional experiment with published expectations, established methods, or means of measuring relative success. There certainly has not been an experimental trial. The first indications are by no means promising and, because of the preconditions listed above, are subject to interpretation. The real goal is resource land acquisition.

In order to get the land it sometimes has to be acquired over the pesky objections of its owners, with the temerity to indicate that the preservationists have no idea what they are doing. The key point of leverage is control of the water in the connecting corridors. Given the democratic claim on the use of water as a commons, the key to a public taking becomes the management and interpretation of specific provisions under either the Clean Water Act, or uses of water pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Determining the outcome nearly always involves a court of law, where the assumptions of a judge and the infinite legal resources of government render the decision nearly a fait accompli or a coup de grâce (depending upon your perspective). The agencies and activist organizations are armed with experienced lawyers and "experts." The landowner and their legal representatives are usually unschooled in the conduct of dispute or technical argument and are very unlikely to have either deep pockets or sufficient data from expert witnesses.

The experts are, of course, scientists. Technical testimony in environmental cases is often composed of value judgements of the degree of threat to or criticality of an ecological resource. These experts are representing themselves to the courts as objective witnesses of activist organizations, universities, and government resource agencies. If, however, these same scientists have been trained to subject their observations and data to what is, at least functionally a religious belief system, then they make their testimonies before courts of law on the bases of such subjective science.

Under a biocentric ethic, our Gaian scientist believes that everything is ecologically critical and all economic value to the property owner is to be disregarded. Such a "scientist" is fully capable of the delusion that subjective interpretation is equivalent to objective data or that dishonesty ‘in the defense of nature’ might not be a moral failing.

A judge is no judge of technical integrity and has no experience upon which to evaluate testimony other than by considering university credentials and the quality of the legal presentation. Consider the above quote in that regard as applies to the expert testimony of such a scientist.

The courts are predisposed to make judgements on the behalf of government agencies under the erroneous assumptions that the testimony is objective and that employees of the U.S. Government are representing policies according to laws passed by Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, most Federal resource agencies are members of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are likely to take positions in the legal conflict, contrary to the agencies’ constitutional and organizational mandates. These private NGOs require agencies of the United States Government to adhere to multilateral treaties as a prerequisite to membership, WHETHER RATIFIED OR NOT. Some such treaties have been specifically rejected. The texts of these treaties grant virtually unlimited power governing land use within the United States to those agencies.

These treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, were designed and drafted by activist NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Congress never allotted payment of Federal Agency membership dues to these international organizations. Both these organizations were started with grants from private, tax-exempt, "non-profit" foundations of the major stockholders in oil companies. These treaties, originating at these NGOs, were blessed by United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and routed for "approval" to the respective member governments of the UN.

Would the UN be representing an interest in acquiring global control of all resources? Under the current plan for reorganization, the UN plans a congress of NGOs that subsists entirely off grant money as supposedly representing civil society: The People’s Assembly.

What kind of government gets to decide who represents "the people?" One that is sponsored by greed and controls "the people" by fealty to faith.

In addition to the philosophical bias on the part of testifying NGO grantees and agency professionals, are also direct career interests. Agency executives often circulate through a revolving door, at either environmental NGOs or private foundations. There is obvious reason for these political appointees to exert pressures upon technical civil servants with few other career options. The inherent conflict of interests in technical testimony thus deepen, to say nothing of the ethical considerations regarding ecosystem health. Though the human propensity to cower in compliance in return for personal security can be understood, it cannot be morally condoned.

The members of any group, with deeply held beliefs in a cause, will suffer frustration if they don’t get what they want. It is natural for them to elevate the consequences of failure to heed their claims. Upon attributing the point of contention to an issue of collective survival, it isn’t hard to justify internally any means to achieve their ends. It is predictable then, that they rely upon the courts, executive fiat, or the irreversible slide down the road to serfdom. Once they get their paycheck in service to that cause, it makes the case more personal. Desperate activists will accept support from any source, even if that source was the historic cause of the very problems they seek to solve! They do it to get their way, through legal coercion at the pleasure of its direct beneficiaries: a moneyed elite interested in manipulating the global commodity value of resources or their substitutes (as we shall see in Part V).

To socialize a commons is to control the factors of production. It is a way to power. A financial elite can dominate the political appointees in charge of administrative bureaucracy. That elite will always subordinate ecology to the acquisition and maintenance of power. It is an ultimately corrupting process destructive to its purpose.

Social "scientists," subsisting off of the ill-gotten cash from the scions of the industrial robber barony, are gleefully destroying the very foundations of individual freedom that have the best hope of fulfilling their dreams. They are selling scientific subjectivity and a biocentric ethic to dedicated human beings, confused into believing they are engaged in unselfish acts. They are mucking with the scientific method. They are destroying the technical integrity of young people, who commit their lives to save the environment.

The antithesis of this book is designed to connect the results with the perpetrators, the philosophy with the policy, the motive with the means, and the local with the global. Each of us will see our own piece of this terrible conflict. The message to many environmentalists, here, is this:

You are being used. It doesn’t work the way you think it does.

To render observation subjective is to engage in self-deception. A scientist, engaged in such art, is trafficking in opinionated guesswork for the mere benefits of self-aggrandizement and a subsistence paycheck. Without technical integrity, deep ecologists may do irreparable damage to everything they say they love, to their great personal sorrow.

Source
24 posted on 06/28/2002 6:05:46 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
These enviralists, the deep ones, have to be some of the most mentally ill people on earth today. They are very much like the al Qaeda thugs. At least the al Qaeda thugs say they want to kill all of us. The enviralist dance around that reality with fancy words and pseudo science.

Stay around my friend, you time is coming!
25 posted on 06/28/2002 6:14:15 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Prodigal Son, you are now under arrest for the assault and battery of rdb3's eyes by linking him to a wormhole site and now rdb3's eyes won't close due to the polution and utter stupidity that that site radiated through his CRT directly through his eyes and to his brain. You have the right to remain silent. Should you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you...

;-)

26 posted on 06/28/2002 6:25:38 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Yeah, us intolerant, religious, bigoted, right wing wackos are a peculiar lot.

We'll listen to just about anybody that makes sense, and has a set of solid facts on their side. I'm not sure what your basis for thinking they would accept you. Socialists usually don't like people pointing out how rational property rights and free market economics are. Not to mention those bits about the Africans. Yee gods, man, don't you know those people starve because of the KKK? :-^)

Welcome home, and some nice work on the "Ehrlich'en Kool Aid drinkers".
27 posted on 06/28/2002 6:33:15 PM PDT by L,TOWM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Tailgunner Joe
Love that cartoon. Thanks for the ping.
28 posted on 06/28/2002 6:42:49 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
"Quit wasting air!"

Now that's what I call a supercalifragilisticexpealidotious RANT!!!

Encore!!! Hit 'em again, harder, HARDER!!!

I take great delight in yer pendantic vituperations!!!

29 posted on 06/28/2002 6:44:47 PM PDT by SierraWasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
LOL! With all the talk and fear lately about the FBI/Gov't monitoring web sites my jaw actually dropped open when I read "you are under arrest". D'oh "Honey! Lock the door- jack booted thugs will be here soon!"

Seriously though, that thread and the link that grundle posted in his number 9 post on this thread were really interesting, the latter one especially. It's interesting to see the way the left react when presented with facts. Especially on the environment. They just can't seem to get their minds around simple concepts.

One point they were hitting on a lot is "Hong Kong has reached an "unsustainable" level of population because the land they have can't possibly be made to feed them all." (Well, as far as that goes, so has New York City- so where does the food come from?) But they seem to take the attitude that "since Hong Kong imports food (ie exports money), they must obviously be taking the food away from somebody else."

It's like they can simply not grasp the concept of "creation of wealth" and the laws of supply and demand. There might be a Nobel Prize in this somewhere. Maybe some neuroscientist can show that the reason lefties are lefties is because they are lacking some synapses in the brain that render them incapable of understanding rational rules and cause and effect. "Africa is poor because we made them poor? We took all there wealth away?" I don't think so.

30 posted on 06/28/2002 7:08:29 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
Some idiocy from Redefining Progress

GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR

GROSS PRODUCTION VS. GENUINE PROGRESS, 1950 to 1999
Graph of GDP versus GPI, 1950 to 1999
In 1996 Dollars

You've seen the headlines, "GDP Up!" Good news, right? Not really. The gross domestic product simply adds up all the money we spend, and calls the results economic growth. Yet for years, economists, policymakers, reporters, and the public have relied on the GDP as a shorthand indicator of progress.

In 1995, Redefining Progress created a more accurate measure of progress, called the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). It starts with the same accounting framework as the GDP, but then makes some crucial distinctions: It adds in the economic contributions of household and volunteer work, but subtracts factors such as crime, pollution, and family breakdown. We continue to update the GPI on a yearly basis to document a more truthful picture of economic progress.

31 posted on 06/28/2002 7:19:30 PM PDT by Fzob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
I wonder what it is that is wrong with lefties. Is it mental, spiritual, both? They are so much like a cancer it's scary.
32 posted on 06/28/2002 7:22:10 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Thanks for the heads up!
33 posted on 06/28/2002 8:36:42 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Interesting thread.
34 posted on 06/28/2002 9:04:32 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: madfly
BTTT!!!!!!
35 posted on 06/29/2002 3:25:46 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, enviro-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

36 posted on 06/29/2002 10:40:07 AM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson