Environmentalists

[Benman]

Here is an extremely interesting article I found on environmentalists. It is long and most will not get all the way through it, but if you do, you'll be glad you did. It also sums up the way I feel about environmentalism.

http://mises.org/story/1927

Just wanted to share it.

Ben:addict:

[bilbozilla]

Ahhhh. Bad science and conjecture. Thank you for the post, Ben. Welcome to the club.

[Benman]

Originally posted by bilbozilla
Ahhhh. Bad science and conjecture. Thank you for the post, Ben. Welcome to the club.
Glad you enjoyed it.:thumb:

""Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. "

"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."

Man, who the heck ARE these people?!?:doh: :trash:

Ben:addict:

[Benman]

One more link (a good video):

http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/introduction/introduction/player.html

Ben:addict:

[CarbonFibre]

Based on your quotes, some of these people seem a bit extreme, but environmentalism isn't bad by any means. You'd have to be pretty thick to believe that what humans are doing on this planet isn't hurting it in some way. Whether the damage is irreversable is what the question is for the long long run (thousands to millions of years). It's easy not to care about these things since each individual human life is short, so we have a tendency to be selfish (myself included) and not care about things like this. Overfishing is one of the biggest environmental issues that I can think of off the top of my head even if so many people like to focus on things like global warming. This issue is 100% real and the science there isn't obscure. Another thing I don't like is the cutting down of the rainforests as it threatens species with extinction; I want those areas to be there for future generations as well.

[CarbonFibre]

Originally posted by Benman
One more link (a good video):

http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/introduction/introduction/player.html

Although there were a few good points in this video, it seems sort of like propoganda to me. There's propoganda on both sides of the issue of course. If people are that anal about retaining their property, then regulations can just be passed saying that they can't develop it at all. But then what is it worth if you can't do anything with it? I suppose some don't trust individuals with all this land.

As an aside, you know the planet Coruscant in the Star Wars prequels and books? It would basically be a shame for a planet to end up like that (not saying it's happening or going to happen to ours). Hopefully by then we'll be able to do that without a problem because we'll still have other planets to visit that are still natural. :hihi:

[Benman]

Originally posted by CarbonFibre
Based on your quotes, some of these people seem a bit extreme, but environmentalism isn't bad by any means.
Extreme yes, but absolutely no more extreme then the environmentalist they are talking about. Caring about one's planet is most definately an important thing. But make no mistake, these environmental agencies are much more concerned with having control than about some cuddly rabbit. They use those images to evoke sympathy (which seems to work with many tree huggers).

Think about it, to stop a multi million dollar building project because there is a Kangaroo Rat population is ridiculous! Yet these very same people (US Government) are they ones evicting people from their land!

Example: Just a few months ago (I'm sure you heard this one), there was an old couple from Connecticut who had a certain very nice home that belonged in their family for generations. In fact since before many States were even States! Now, along comes a developer and they want to build a Hotel. So they get a petition started and sure enough, convince all the town to vote for the Hotel to be placed right at the sight of the old couple's historic home. Problem, the old couple have ZERO intention of selling. They don't care how much the developer offers, they will not sell, it is their home and their land! So the people go to court and evict them! How convenient! Now they have to sell! Well, old couple go to Supreme Court! SAME verdict! They actually rule that the other town people and developer have the right to make them sell and kick them off of their own property! Yes, I am simplifying the whole process, but here's my point:

If their had been Kangaroo Rats or some other stupid bullcrap reason (I'm speaking from experience as one building project my father pulled out of because of Kangaroo Rat "surveys" were taking years...), you know every tree hugger in the United States would have boycotted the project. But since it was "only" the loss of a human's home, the Supreme Courts said, "kick em out!"

Now everyone please think about that one as you go to bed. You are NOT in any way as important as a freaking Kagaroo Rat. When you think about it, it makes you sick! It certainly does me! And don't forget, this is the "Land of the Free!", at least that is what they spit at us in the media.

Taking a home away from a HUMAN is more tragic than the taking away some rat's home. There is no way to justify it. So again, these people that care more about little rodents that get run over on a daily basis on the freeway are nuts. They care more about them than their own fellow man! Absurd! Tell you one thing, if I was that old man, I would have burned down every single one of the homes of the people who served on that jury and especially the judge! If they can take away my home, than I would surely take away theirs!

As for global warming because of the rain forest, that's crap. Take any building project in the US for example. You take an absolutely worthless peice of land (oh, my bad, forgot about the rats) and transform it into useable land. Now before, it was just bare land, no trees, no anything. After the project is done, it has many oxygen given flora on it. Know why? City makes you put trees and plants on it. My point? Everytime someone does build something (with their own money and their own land) it has more oxygen given things on it than when the project is started! As for rain forests, that is different. It is not a privately owned project. It is a government funded project! Wait! How can this be? They are the same government trying to "protect" the environment?!? Don't make sense does it?

And why use the rain forest at all! Has any one been to Oregon lately? Dang! They have all the trees you could ever need! But no, most of the land is "protected" so that that they can't use those trees and instead look for cheap (government backed) projects like wood from the rain forest. It goes on and on and on and my my fingers are tired and I want to go home and eat dinner now.

Damn those Kangaroo Rats!

Ben:addict: Signing off in the Land of the Free...:rolleyes:

[CarbonFibre]

I'm not tying global warming and the destruction of the rainforest as even if it was a factor, it would be a more minimal percentage than things like greenhouse gas emissions.

When I referred to the extremism in my last post, I was referring to the quotes from the naturalists and not the other side.

I don't agree with them taking that land to build the hotel, but that's politics for you. For all we know the judges were paid off or there were already regulations and laws set up that allowed for this to happen.

You want to put the rights of humans before other animals, but at what point is it going too far? It's hard to say really. I am for conservationism to curb the destruction that is caused by some entrepeneurs and corporations alike in their pursuit of profits at whatever cost.

[RS4Ever]

Originally posted by Benman


Example: Just a few months ago (I'm sure you heard this one), there was an old couple from Connecticut who had a certain very nice home that belonged in their family for generations. In fact since before many States were even States! Now, along comes a developer and they want to build a Hotel. So they get a petition started and sure enough, convince all the town to vote for the Hotel to be placed right at the sight of the old couple's historic home. Problem, the old couple have ZERO intention of selling. They don't care how much the developer offers, they will not sell, it is their home and their land! So the people go to court and evict them! How convenient! Now they have to sell! Well, old couple go to Supreme Court! SAME verdict! They actually rule that the other town people and developer have the right to make them sell and kick them off of their own property! Yes, I am simplifying the whole process, but here's my point:

Taking a home away from a HUMAN is more tragic than the taking away some rat's home. There is no way to justify it. So again, these people that care more about little rodents that get run over on a daily basis on the freeway are nuts. They care more about them than their own fellow man! Absurd! Tell you one thing, if I was that old man, I would have burned down every single one of the homes of the people who served on that jury and especially the judge! If they can take away my home, than I would surely take away theirs!

Now before, it was just bare land, no trees, no anything. After the project is done, it has many oxygen given flora on it. Know why? City makes you put trees and plants on it. My point? Everytime someone does build something (with their own money and their own land) it has more oxygen given things on it than when the project is started!


Ben:addict: Signing off in the Land of the Free...:rolleyes:



ben , first off.. nice video.

you make some great points.
i am on my way to get a degree in construction/land development and am in shock of this case of the couple with the hotel to be built on THEIR land.. wow.
I understand or i can see more how the gov can condem or issue easement use for property but this really pushing it (IMHO).


Originally posted by Benman


Tell you one thing, if I was that old man, I would have burned down every single one of the homes of the people who served on that jury and especially the judge! If they can take away my home, than I would surely take away theirs!



i feel the same... it just makes you think as to the taxes you pay into own the rights of the land.

what needs to come into perspective here is that people do not necesarily own the land, but instead own the RIGHTS in the land.

this poor old couple - thier rights in the land mean nothing now and the stupid neighbors are just going to watch a hotel shoot up instead of protect thier a$$ for the future.

but, us being mindless rodents, i guess we can no longer exercise those rights. not even the rodents who were in favor of that hotel.

and about the trees- i will agree 100%
county 's are very strict with trees to be on a newly developed site - and in fact i have been on a few projects where they came by to COUNT the trees on site (retail) to see if it met thier requirements.
so like ben said, most likely you will end up with more oxygen than when it was before.

not only though, in some instances, if a fairly large development is to take place, some county systems may require you to take a certain percentage of that to develop land for park area (:hihi: not the kind for our cars)... ect

Green Buildings..
and lets not forget that now more and more buildings (anytype- but mainly office) are starting to be built to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) specs.

so all this environmental - hybrid car stuff going on and these efficient buildings but still as the video said its more of not what you do/did with your property - but who will own it.

thanks for sharing that. i will have to see what my land dev. professor thinks of that okward ruling.

again, always something new to learn on this forum.:asian:

[RS4Ever]

btw, carbon fibre also made some good points.

and im not really here to say who is right/wrong.. just really wanted to throw myself in this thread to learn more.

:idea:

[Benman]

Originally posted by CarbonFibre

When I referred to the extremism in my last post, I was referring to the quotes from the naturalists and not the other side.

Sorry Carbon, totally misunderstood your previous comment. My bad.

Yes, this may sound extreme, but I do believe the rights of humans come before the rights of animals. This does not mean that I think animals are not crucial to man's existance. Quite the contrary. Afterall, a world without even ants (although my wife hates them in the house) would be out of control. Same goes for spiders, insects, rodents, etc. And you are correct, we need to help animals. On a side note, I am a firm believer that man was put on this planet for a purpose. It was not to destroy the Earth, but to inhabit it and subdue it. This reasoning is straight from Scripture. Many nowadays do not believe in the Bible. That is their right. But the counsel given in the books are for us to take care of the Earth and make it productive.

Yes, you are correct that many large corporations (but remember, 9 out of 10 of those cases have government backing/intervention) have done things to ruin the Earth. This is not acceptable, and on that, I couldn't agree with you more.

But when it gets to the point to where humans are serving animals? That is where the line must be drawn. The animals were put on this planet to benefit humans, not the other way. This does not give us the right to abuse them (for example when early Americans nearly wiped out the buffalo population), but instead gives us the obligation to protect them. But not like those nutsos are insisting. Speaking of buffalos, take Ted Turner. Some may not know this but Mr. Turner has the largest privately owned population of buffalo in the world! He didn't need government financing (he's very wealthy) to "protect" the animals. In fact, he has made it into a quite profitable buisness. How so? Well, he has so many buffalo, that he needs to trim back on the studs, so he decided to open his own chain of "Ted's Montana Grill" restaurants (link: http://www.tedsmontanagrill.com/about.html). He has the majority of the market share of buffalo meat and at the same time is actually expanding the population of buffalo in North America! Of course the tree huggers say that is exploiting the animals! Of course half of them don't bother to notice the leather shoes they are wearing!:doh: Idiots.

Ted's is just one example of man protecting the population of a speicies and profiting off of it at the same time (and BTW, before people get the idea of some dairy farm where his buffalo are crammed into small quarters, nothing could be farther from the truth as I've seen photos of his ranch. It's tens of thousands of acres in total where the "buffalo roam" freely and enjoy a pretty darn good life right up to the slaughter. They also use old school more "humane" methods of slaughter, not Mc Donalds' methods.

Another point I'd like to make is that in a free market society, you can pressure big business without government coercion. For example a very interesting article on handicap parking can be found here: http://www.mises.org/story/1898 .

The points it makes are excellent. Why the need for government enforcement of handicap parking spaces in a freemarket? Stores (such as Home Depot and Lowes) that hardly ever receive handicap patrons would cut back on those wasted spaces and those that received more would increase. What about the "evil" corporations that didn't care about their handicapped clients? Easy. Those clients would take their business elswhere, along with all those sympathetic towards the needs of handicapped individuals.

And the article concludes with an outstanding example of the grocery store "expectant Mother's" parking spots. We had one at our local store and never saw anyone abusing it. All without police intervention. Same would be true of handicap parking spots in a free market. Again, we really don't need more laws to protect the poor, or the animals. In a truely free market, people would take their business to corporations that did not exploit land, animals or humans. In Mc Donalds case, that is classic government, not freemarket. They are so powerfull and so rich they are able to bribe high officials (oh, I'm sorry, did I say bribe, I meant to say Lobbyists!) to turn the other cheek as to what they do and how they really get the food produced so cheap (free tip, don't eat at Mc Donalds, I haven't for years). In a free market, people would not need the government to protect them, because they would not have biased media (owned by large corporations that bribe (opps, did it again, ahem... Lobby) government, because there would be no government.

People would see what they don't like about a business, and then take their business elsewhere to a place where they feel good about that business' practices (BTW, my family shops at Sprouts, an all organic store and eats very healthy. We like like the way they do business, like the way they treat the land and the animals. It comes at a price, but in our my we feel it's worth it).

Others do not and will only shop at large scale grocery stores. That's fine too. Just depends on what you like. Again though, it is not that people need new laws to protect the land. Just common sense. Too often the government insists we are too stupid to make these kinds of important decisions. But how ironic that they say we are smart enough to elect a a total stranger that we've never met to make these decisions for us! How retarded is THAT!

If any are interested, there are many fine books to read on this topic that I would be happy to recommend.:cheers:

Ben:addict:

[gjg]

Originally posted by Benman
Too often the government insists we are too stupid to make these kinds of important decisions. But how ironic that they say we are smart enough to elect a a total stranger that we've never met to make these decisions for us! How retarded is THAT!


well - this is a good point unfortunately before we could achieve "government-less" society we would have to:

1. hang all the lawyers (Shakespeare said this few hundred years ago - I am just quoting here), and

2. remove part of the current "members" living comfortably of the system without contributing anything (asset wise)

We have discussed this part in another threat already ....

:idea:

[Benman]

Originally posted by gjg


We have discussed this part in another threat already ....

:idea:
Would George be referring to this thread?: http://www.rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7545
:D

Hey, what do you have against lawyers? They are some of the most friendly, honest, hard working individuals on this planet. Even more honest than politicians. Did I just say that outloud?:D

Ben:addict:

[Code_2025]

Thanks for sharing Ben. My current girl is such an environmental cautious person...she says that even if one person did the right thing...it would matter...I think she is right..

:thumb:
:s4addict:

[gjg]

damn, I need to move where you are .....


They are some of the most friendly, honest, hard working individuals on this planet. Even more honest than politicians.

:doh:

[Benman]

Seems we drive those big engine cars all we like...:hahahehe:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery033006.htm

Ben:addict:

[AndyBG]

Now, we are warming, in a next 5 - 10 years we are going to slip into Ice age, whait and see, i am not kiding.

[Benman]

Originally posted by AndyBG
Now, we are warming, in a next 5 - 10 years we are going to slip into Ice age, whait and see, i am not kiding.

Kinda what the article was saying. The Earth is in constant "cycles", sometimes warm, sometimes cold. We'll see what the future brings.

Even Top Gear made a crack at Environmentalists (interesting side note, their name contains: "mentalists" :D ) and was saying that it is proved that a COW just by farting all day generates as much carbon emission as an automobile! So what's next? We ban them? Or maybe just make them fart hydro emissions...:trash:

Ben:addict:

[RS4Ever]

Originally posted by Benman

Even Top Gear made a crack at Environmentalists (interesting side note, their name contains: "mentalists" :D ) and was saying that it is proved that a COW just by farting all day generates as much carbon emission as an automobile!
Ben:addict:


hehe.. i remember that one. yeah he was mentioning about methane amounts.