Anti-Humans 30

[zdas04]

I've often referred to the environmental lobby as "anti-human". I just came across a document on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) web site that supports that idea. The whole document is at Laramie Energy, but I've extracted a page from it that I've attached.

The attached is a series of quotes from noted environmentalists. I especially like the quote from John Davis (editor of Earth First) who said

Human beings as a species have no more value than slugs

or

I do not believe that a human being has a right to life ... I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals

I think that the quotes in the attached fully support the idea that the law firms generally called "Environmental Non-Government Organizations (e-NGO)" are totally and completely against their own species.

David

 

[SLTA]

David, you can find extremists on any side, and you did a great job of doing just that. A little tempering, please.

I believe we have a direct command from God to take care of the earth and the animals/etc. People sometimes act like my 4-yr old and throw fits when they can't have exactly what they want when they want it, regardless of the rotten consequences it may bring about.

 

[zdas04]

Sita,
I think that I have an obligation as an engineer to minimize the resources consumed and to reduce the environmental impact (within the bounds of required performance) on the activities I'm involved with. That has NOTHING to do with environmental activism.

I've been reviewing quite a bit of writing prepared by the e-NGO's this past year, and I find that list of quotations to be perfectly in line with the published writings of Wild Earth Guardians, San Juan Citizen's Alliance, Sierra Club, and PETA.

I'm going to assume that you were talking about the people I quoted with your "4-year old" comment even though John Muir was in his 70's when he said what was quoted. If I thought you were talking about me I'd probably take offence.

David

 

[TheTick]

Yes, David, please. Your information is entirely too factual and a wee bit too traceable. Temper it with some conjecture, please. Some unfounded allegations would be nice, too. Say some nice things. We need to hear nice things.

 

[KENAT]

Don't take offence zdas, take a gate instead it's a lot easier.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

"take a gate"?????????????? Is that some sort of Brit-morphed-to-Californicator phrase? I don't get it. Sorry.

David

 

[TheTick]

What if humans are actually the best thing for the planet? What if some other species evolved to fill our niche and did an even worse job on the planet? Imagine if cats ruled the earth!

 

[zdas04]

PETA would be happy

 

[TheTick]

There are plenty of other animals that do bad things...

Murder: apes, dolphins, horses, chipmunks
Abortion: horses, big cats
Infanticide: very long list including cats
Cannibalism: a multitude of fish species
Thrill killing: dolphins, northern pike, cats, terriers
Resource depletion: sheep
War: chimps
Rape: dolphins

 

[TGS4]

This sounds like a good time for a reappearance of George Carlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

 

[rconnor]

I will extrapolate an intended purpose out of this to be that when you have nuts like PETA on the side of climate change then the entire argument for AGW/environmental regulation/resource conservation/etc is automatically wrong or irrelevant. Please elaborate if I'm mistaken.

I don't argue with you that there are eco-extremists and others on the "alarmist" side of AGW that do not understand the issues or the consequences of actions to remedy AGW (or reduce the rate of consumption of resources). They purpose drastic changes that will have major ecological and economical ramifications that they have not thought of. There are others that purpose similar changes but are fully aware of the ramifications but believe them to be appropriate. Then there is the just-plan-crazies like PETA who should be laughed at from both sides of the debate, not used as justification for one side being right.

I believe that the majority of environmentalists, discounting the extremists, are almost the exact opposite of anti-human. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that our actions effective the environment in a manner that will, at some point, be detrimental to ALL humans.

Most of the people on these forums would be in position to ride out a major change in climate (IF it came) but what about the vast majority of Africa/Asia/South America? IF AGW is true and Africa continues to see extreme droughts, they will not be able to hop on a plane and relocate to a climate less effected (i.e. North America/Europe...where the majority of us on this forum are located), they won't be able to drive down to the supermarket and pick up fruits imported from another continent, their "governments" won't be able to supply aid to them. Environmentalists call for more stringent regulation not for the benefit of you and I, but for those that can't protect themselves from climate changes. What is LESS anti-human than that?

An interesting thing to consider is the idea of cultural cognition, the concept that people form perceptions of risks based on the self-defining values of their environment. Yale law professor, Dan Kahan writes in "Nature" that people "find it disconcerting to believe that behaviour that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behaviour that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it".

So for North Americans, the idea of climate change is a lot of economic and life-style risk if we were to adopt some of these regulations but the risk of doing nothing and AGW causing major damage is less immediate for us due to our financial and political ability to be resilient in the face of changing climate/resource depletion. Whereas, the vast majority of the developing world carries lower risk to the effect on life-style but an incredibly large risk in the event of climate change/resource starvation.

Being that the vast majority of the lobbying power for or against environmental regulation lies with developed nations, we cannot let our comfy environment cloud our judgment on what the correct thing to do is. I DO NOT mean to say that the correct thing to do is put in a carbon tax and prevent free trade but it is not good enough to say that doing something about it will be too much of an inconvenience for me; we must be more humanitarian than that.

I have followed AGW threads on this forum with great interest. I feel that it is a place where intelligent people, from both sides of the debate, can discuss the issue. Unfortunately, I see terms such as "anti-human", "denialists" and "alarmists" used too often to describe the other side. The use of these terms undermines what is otherwise an important and intellectually stimulating debate into a squawking-fest of "you're an idiot" (both sides are very guilty of this).

Again, I don't question that the quotes that you've selected here are probably best described by the term "anti-human" but I would like to see the argument be less polarized. I feel that both sides are closer to each other than we think (on this forum at least) because both see conservation as important; the difference is the approach and extent to which we take it.

For context, I am on the side for socioeconomic-environmental reform but am not 100% sold (we'll say 66%) on the fact that AGW will cause catastrophic damage to the planet. However, I am sold on the concept that to live in an infinite growth paradigm on a planet with a finite amount of resources will eventually be our demise, whether it is through AGW, lack of oil, lack of fresh water, lack of cultivatable land or other and 200 years from now or 10,000 years. I see enough evidence that makes me believe that serious action is required. Again, not to say this is right but just as context for my response.

I'd also like to say that I have personally enjoyed some of your counter-arguments to AGW/environmental regulation that you've made in other threads zdas04, you bring a very grounded view to the table. However, when you use terms like "anti-human" you devalue your point and make it sound more like, "I'm right, you're a crazy nut job, go join PETA you hippy" (that was purposefully hyperbolic for an attempt at humour...hopefully you still get my point).

 

[KENAT]

"Take Offense", in certain accents sounds like "Take a fence".

Using, or taking, a gate is generally easier then jumping a fence.

So taking a gate is easier than taking offense.

More seriously, the Environmental lobby is so diverse that generalizing can be tricky.

For instance there are 'environmentalists' both for and against certain things like wind turbines or even nuclear depending on what aspect of 'the environment' they prioritize.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[zdas04]

TGS4,
Thanks for that video link, I've seen it before, but it is always wonderful.

rconnor,
I absolutely did not mention AGW. I have been working for the last year preparing an industry response to the current EPA effort to substantially increase the purported "air-quality" regulations on Oil & Gas. This "cost effective" (a term used repeatedly in the preamble to the regulation, not a term that I would apply to it) regulation will impose requirements, some of which cost upwards of $1 million USD/tonne of VOC avoided--and they say repeatedly that it is not intended to regulate GHG. This regulation was forced by a consent decree in a case brought against the EPA by Wild Earth Guardians and San Juan Citizen's Alliance. As part of preparing the industry response I've had to read a couple of thousand pages of e-NGO comments. I have to say that "anti-human" is the kindest thing I can say about this ill-informed nonsense.

The current thread is about my contention that the e-NGO's are anti-human. You say that it is a tiny minority of the environmentalist cause that is that radical. I've never met an "environmentalist" who didn't describe his credentials as "a member of ..." where the "..." is Sierra Club, Wild Earth Guardians, Environmental Defence Fund, etc. If I'm a member of an organization (say ASME) then when I send them my renewal check I am clearly saying that I agree with them more than I disagree, same with membership in an e-NGO. The writings of these organizations show an extreme hatred for the author's species.

I have read documents from each of these e-NGO's that were far more directed at punishing industry than in protecting anything. I've read proposals that would actually increase emissions of some pretty nasty chemicals in the name of punishing companies.

I have to admit that I only read a small part of your lengthy post because it absolutely was not germane to this discussion. If you feel you must talk about AGW, please start your own dang thread.

Please watch the George Carlin video that was linked above to see an hilarious and oh so accurate description of the intention of this thread.

I was actually very proud of myself for not using the term "enviro-wacko" to describe these folks.

David

 

[KENAT]

Started reading Atlas Shrugged not too long ago though it really didn't grab me. For one thing the 'villains' were just so unrealistic and the hero's as bad.

However, had the villains been environmentalists like those in Zdas list of quotes it may have been a bit more believable.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[jmw]

Actually, the anti-human bit is probably quite a driver and highly dangerous to us all despite the apparent lunacy of the proponents.

It wouldn't matter if some of these people spouting this nonsense were in mental homes or, at the very worst, simply spouting off in their local pub after a pint or two.

The problem is:
a) there is no doubt this is a core belief for these people
b) these people have managed to reach highly influential positions largely out of the spotlight.

They are very much anti-human, it seems.

AGW was the scam by which they were going to achieve their goals. AGW is passe now. WE are even beyond abrupt climate change.

The shift is now to population growth.
This is highlighted in an article in the Guardian.
This came to my attention from a post by Dave Gardiner at Numberwatch who notes that:

'Expert' speakers suggested the following five topics as candidates for the most important priority: Education & population, The oceans, Water, Energy, and Food security. Climate change, which I think most people would say has been the main focus of attention for the Greenies for the last twenty years, is not listed as a topic.

Shortly thereafter the 7 billion population point was announced (a notional point in time which has a bandwidth of several years) and in a BBC program not long afterwards to do with food, of all things, a well rehearsed comment was made about 9 billion people and their effect on the world.

The dangers of people like Maurice Strong and his ilk is that they have achieved an unprecedented level of power and influence Rasputin would be proud of.

They have done it it by taking advantage of the infiltration method of gaining power even in democratic societies.
This is the means by which a very small but dedicated group of people can take control over influential organisations out of all proportion to their actual numbers and it allows them to bypass the democratic process.

This is exampled by the way Militant tendency nearly took of the UK labour party.
They do it not by targeting the apparently important jobs in the public eye, like Parliamentary candidate but by becoming officials within the party machine.
They are the Uriah heaps who are only too happy to do all the grunt work, the unglamorous organising work. Progressively they take over the key posts in the party machine and are then the puppet masters.
It doesn't matter that the vast majority of the party members have completely different political views, they are now being manipulated by a very few extremists.

Those in the UK concerned about Cameron's Big Society see behind it the work of Saul Alinsky whose is an adherent of this method of gaining control. Obama has tried to distance himself from Alinsky but he is associated as Cameron is.

In the past there have been reports about the structure of some of the NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

A lot of these organisations started out as friendly well intentioned touchy feely warm huggy organisations that attracted the support of hand knit cardigan old ladies etc concerned about Pandas and the white Rhino (but not the demise of the European Brown rat or other less huggable species) and acquired a righteous reputation - and a great deal of funding both from members and governments.

These are the organisations who attract billions in subsidies from governments and who have been infiltrated and taken over.
The original founders are all long gone. Some ousted and some left in disgust.

Conspiracy theories?
Maybe.
Take a look at the background of these organisations.
And yes, even paranoids can have enemies. There can be and are conspiracies. We just are encouraged to dismiss all conspiracy theories like the other gunman on the grassy knoll. UFOs. Indeed, some of these far out conspiracies serve very well to discredit any suggestion of the existence of more real conspiracies.
But to gain control with a very few people, to target the influential positions and puppet master the publicity seeking politicians appears all too easy. It doesn't even take a real conspiracy.
Take a look at some of these lunatics and see just how outrageous their views are and the influence they actually have.

The dangers we should recognise because history is full of examples where lunatics have taken power.
But usually the lunatics have taken centre stage.
The danger of the modern lunatics is they are content to be puppet masters.
They are largely anonymous.
They do not directly slaughter millions of their own people in purges and pogram's. An example is how Rachel Carson's Silent Spring lead to the banning of DDT and the deaths of millions as a result.
There is no Stalin figure we can blame and we cannot really blame Carson. No one is going to bring her before the international court.

This is how it all works.

We have also seen how the MSM is complicit either wittingly or unwittingly in directing our attention and popularising the current fads.
Why? Is it because some of these organisations have also been infiltrated?

Should we be worried?
Well, the younger people might ought to be.
Us older folk may be dead by the time it all falls apart. But there again......


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Just Google Maurice Strong and see what you find.
George Siros.
Saul ALinsky.
Add Obama and Gore to the search.

To look out for: the Rio Summit in June 2012 where the latest scam will evolve.
A leaked agenda is behind this Guardian article.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

There are anti-humans in the enviro-religionist camp: people who feel guilt merely for being alive. And there are anti-humans in the consumerist/materialist/capitalist camp- or more properly, there are people in this camp who think that they have special rights that other humans don't- they're "uber-humans" of some kind, and the rest of us are irrelevant and unimportant.

Both camps weild some political power in our society.

Extremists are bad. Extremists in power are worse.

What's your point again?

Other than that, I've got nothing to add, as rconnor said it all so eloquently.

 

[ImminentCollapse]

rconnor,
The moral high-ground argument for environmental activism falls apart when people say:
“Environmentalists call for more stringent regulation not for the benefit of you and I, but for those that can't protect themselves from climate changes.”

These people can’t protect themselves right now from much greater, immediate, and real threats. Dowries are still paid in many countries, women are treated as sub-human in many cultures, and there are rampant unspeakable atrocities actively on-going all over the world. These are not “might occur” “if“ global warming happens, they are, tangible, documented, seen, reported, CERTAIN to continue.

Do the People in North Korea really need Kyoto? How about Darfur, Rwanda, etc, etc, etc,

If western society has the responsibility to protect people who cannot protect themselves from climate change, then we have the responsibility to overthrow governments that are committing these human rights atrocities. Did environmentalists support the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan to oust regimes that have committed far more horrific acts than simply ejecting too much CO2 in the air?

I akin this to the argument that we need to ban guns because they kill kids. Many, many more kids are killed by bikes, swimming pools and skateboards than guns. If we really want to save lives, lets ban the those first, then the guns.

People are suffering from far worse than the prospect of what "may" happen "if" climate change is real. If we don't address those issues first, it wil not matter what may happen if global warming is real.

My one, and only post on this.
IC

 

[cranky108]

Why is it that we hear such bad things about deforrestation, when a part of this is humans trying to create farm land to support there families. I would think in this respect, being agenst deforrestation would be agenst humans supporting themselves.

Strange as it sounds, I don't hear about reforrestations projects, or educuation programs to teach these people to better manage there land.

After all, it was some of the same issues in the early US that drove people west (Along with large families, and shortages of land).

Education, and health services is the key to many of these problems. Not preaching AGW to educated people.

 

[SLTA]

cranky, there are lots of reforestation projects. Wangari Maathai was a Kenyan woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 for exactly that. Look her up on wikipedia tomorrow.