Posted on 12/04/2002 7:27:37 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
My point was, humans are not overrunning the earth like the enviro wack jobs would like us to believe.
So I no longer need to separate my trash for recycling because there's plenty of room for everyone's garbage?
We no longer need to ration wild game animals? We can all hunt and bag as many animals as we would like because there's so much wilderness teeming with game?
We no longer need to artificially stock trout streams?
We can ignore regulations limiting the size and quantity of game fish?
People can again use their fireplaces in areas where burning wood has been outlawed because there's plenty of atmosphere to absorb the smoke?
We can all go out to the woods and chop down trees for fuel and materials or just for fun, because there will be plenty of wilderness left over?
We no longer need to make a reservation months in advance before we can visit Yellowstone?
We can open the hoods of our cars and throw all that air pollution control crap in the weeds because there's plenty of weeds in which to throw it and because there's so much sky and earth and so few cars that we don't need air pollution controls?
We don't have to worry about drought or water purification, because there's plenty of clean, fresh, water for everyone?
If there's so much land, why can't any one of us just go find an unoccupied place in a congenial climate, chop down its trees and dig-up its rocks to build a home on it in which to live?
Surely, if there were an ample supply of land, it would be cheap to the point of being free.
People have become so used to living with shortage, they don't even recognize it. Frog in boiling water syndrome.
Prisoners have time to watch HBO and lift weights? Then they have time to separate our trash for recycling for us.
We no longer need to ration wild game animals? We can all hunt and bag as many animals as we would like because there's so much wilderness teeming with game?
I live in Wisconsin. The state is BEGGING us to hunt deer, we have so many.
We no longer need to artificially stock trout streams?
Don't know, don't care. I don't eat fish.
We can ignore regulations limiting the size and quantity of game fish?
The Indian tribes do. You know, those indigenous people who are supposedly 'one with nature'? They use something that looks like a hay fork, and fish until the boat is full.
People can again use their fireplaces in areas where burning wood has been outlawed because there's plenty of atmosphere to absorb the smoke?
Yup. The ash is nice fertilizer, and the carbon dioxide gets absorbed by other plant life and converted, through photosynthesis, into carbohydrates (sugar).
We can all go out to the woods and chop down trees for fuel and materials or just for fun, because there will be plenty of wilderness left over?
Yup. And, it'll grow back. It's renewable. If it wasn't, the earth would have been cleared of all plant life eons ago.
We no longer need to make a reservation months in advance before we can visit Yellowstone?
In your world view, Yellowstone is the last remaining stand of trees? Geez man, get out more. There's trees all over the place.
We can open the hoods of our cars and throw all that air pollution control crap in the weeds because there's plenty of weeds in which to throw it and because there's so much sky and earth and so few cars that we don't need air pollution controls?
We survived without all that pollution control crap before.
We don't have to worry about drought or water purification, because there's plenty of clean, fresh, water for everyone?
Like I stated above, I live in Wisconsin. We're sandwiched between the Mississippi to the West, Lake Michigan to the East, and Lake Superior to the North.
If there's so much land, why can't any one of us just go find an unoccupied place in a congenial climate, chop down its trees and dig-up its rocks to build a home on it in which to live?
Like the homesteaders did? Because the enviro assholes will find some fish, or spider, or flea and attempt to force them off the land - re. Klamath Falls.
Surely, if there were an ample supply of land, it would be cheap to the point of being free.
If you don't mind being somewhere where there aren't any paved roads, no city water, no sewer, no cable, no telephone, no electricity.
Excuse me for leaving out the words, "ample supply of good land in a congenial climate".
In such a place you can be free of the need for paved roads, sewers, cable, and telephones--all those are the terrible price we pay for overcrowding.
Funny that the human race alone among species, surived and evolved millenia before finally arriving at the point where it could finally obtain what it really needed all along. Lucky for us the human race surived until it could finally figure out how to invent the telephone.
And we can then be free from you posting wacko nutcase B.S., because in such places there is also no internet access with which to post said wacko nutcase B.S..
People live in cities and suburbs because they CHOOSE TO. They like having sewage systems, a reliable water supply, electricity, phones, television, proximity to food stores, hardware stores, clothes stores, movie theatres, friends, family, museums, sports stadiums, etc., etc., etc..
And then there are those like the Unabomber, or the Weavers, who want to get away from it all, and DO get away from it all, because that is how they CHOOSE to live.
That people CHOOSE to live within proximity to centers of civilization does not mean that America is wall to wall strip malls and apartment buildings, assholes to elbows, stacked like cord wood.
Yes, just like people speak English in America because they CHOOSE to.
Each of us is free, for example, to look for a job using a resume written in Ancient Greek.
It's totally up to what we CHOOSE.
Which was your response to this: Surely, if there were an ample supply of land, it would be cheap to the point of being free.
Land in the US would be far cheaper if so danged much of it weren't kept off the market by the feds.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for managing 262 million acres of land--about one-eighth of the land in the United States--and about 300 million additional acres of subsurface mineral resources. The Bureau is also responsible for wildfire management and suppression on 388 million acres.That doesn't include national parks, national forests, wildlife preserves, public waterways, offshore areas, etc. Last time I tried to put the figures together it was about 500 million acres. And that's just in the US.
Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Mgt..
The snuffing out of creatures that can't adapt to the new environment resulting from the appearance of a sapient tool-user is evolution.
That said, prudence should be excersized to avoid damaging something of actual or potential value to humanity.
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.