Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Anti-Humans 30

Status
Not open for further replies.
zdas04

zdas04

Mechanical
Jun 25, 2002
10,274
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
Click to expand...
or
PETA said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Prof Crutzen proposed using rockets and artillery (the Super-guns of Dr Bull?) to deliver SOX into the upper atmosphere.
Tests have been conducted, we are assured.
The idea of volcanoes was subsequent development.

I just picked that as the first link to the concept.

Perhaps the Guardian article is more attractive?
Despite having all the credentials, this is regrettably not one of those easily dismissed "two headed calves stories and Elvis sightings", stories famous with the National Enquirer. Though, with its total addiction to AGW and its fostering of Moonbat the Guardian environmental stories probable do verge into that sort of journalistic arena.

So how about the Torygraph?
This article looks at tethered balloons and hose-pipes tests in Norfolk but suggests artificial volcanoes may be a last resort.

Sadly, the AGW buffoons at the Telegraph are no more credible than Moonbat.



JMW
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The thing we have to remember is how stupid ideas often attract the investment or political support.
Think Eugenics for one.
It wasn't just Nazi Germany that practised this. Indeed, it was at one time popular with many countries and US states.
Most recently in the UK social workers have prevented two mental challenged people from marrying. Despite the reasons given, the effect is that of eugenics.
Or think Lysenko. Lysenko became popular in Russia at a time when most scientists were busy being purged and enjoying holidays in the Gulags (a sort of Butlins for Russians).

No, the propoennets of such ideas may be mad as hatters but that doesn't mean they won';t be allowed to do their damnedest.

JMW
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Don't take this wrong, but many of these ideas have a root of a good idea. The problem is who makes the decision of who Eugenics favors.
This is the same issue with goverments getting involved in making human decisions over people. Who should decide?

At this point the UN is taking the same path to make human decisions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
yes, it's an ethical dilemma if you're making a decision and you're the advantaged party (or the disadvantaged party if you're going to shoot it down).

governments, and kings, and leaders of all sorts, have been doing this since man organised himself into groups ... all members of a group abdicate some personal decision making to the leader; if the leader annoys too many followers, they do something about it ...

i'm just sommenting of the sulphur seeding scheme as quite possibly the worst idea (however well intented, and aren't they the worst ?) since sliced bread. particularly when you consider the effect of natural volcanoes, and the huge amount of SOx they produce (at random intervals) ... how would Anything we do have much effect ? and i fear that just the opposite would happen, and it might have a huge (unintended) effect, and then where'd we be ??

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Whenever I think of someone doing something proactive to "fix" something in the environment I shudder. We "fixed" wildfires by putting them out and now there is so much unburned organic waste in the forests of the world that when they burn they are so hot that the land is sterilized and just erodes away.

On a smaller scale, all over the Southwest U.S. we were going to fix riverbank erosion by planting Russian Olive and Salt Cedar trees. Both very hardy fast growing species that quickly pushed out the native plants. Now both are classed as "invasive" we're fixing that by clear cutting river banks and the dirt is washing into the rivers.

Every single action I can think of that well-intentioned people take to "fix" a natural problem has unintended consequences that are generally worse than the original problem. We never will learn that predators have a place in the circle of life and that when we "fix" something we are going to break something else.

Bring on the man-made volcanoes. I can only imagine what the world-wide crises of 2020 will look like.

David
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yellowstone park is a living testimony to truth of the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". There is a good reference to this in "State of Fear". The law of unintended consequences lies in wait for all such rash acts.

What amazes me is the way pet shops and garden centres seem able to import what they like and sell what they like to who they like. (On the other hand, the US apparently has more snow tigers as pets than there are still in the wild.)

Nice fluffy bunny, how do you like the land of Oz?
Here's a nice pacific island we can moor up to shore, empty the ship light the smoke pots and drive out the rats.
Like your new island home, rats?

Kudzu.... great stuff. The whole of the south is strangled in the damn stuff.

In the UK the great forestry plantations are all of European species (Cyrpus pine or something, I can't remember offhand) which supports none of the native wildlife though grey squirrels (American immigrants) are OK with them.
The English oak supports around a thousand different species.
Europe wants to make the European oak the standard.... as if it has anything to do with them.... because it has straighter limbs. I have no idea what its impact will be.



JMW
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
the impact would be to screw the Limies ... always an ambition for the Europeans (mainlanders that is, since the UK is part of Europe).

hasn't the EU done similar with the British sausage ('cause it ain't the same as good german sausage), and British cheese ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Having been severely chastised for being long winded I cut out a whole lot about the Corsican Tyrant and any wondering about why anything remotely Corsican should find favour in the UK.
And yes, Napoleon and all his relatives and successors.


JMW
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Preditors???
Would loggers be classified as tree preditors? Would the solution of over grown non-native trees be loggers?
We can fix some problems, even the ones we create. We just have to have the will and allow some things to happen.
Maybe loggers need hunting tags like deer hunters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Funny you should mention that. In some of the under harvested forests of the U.S. the government is [sub]very quietly[/sub] marking trees for harvest and bidding out the rights to harvest the trees to small companies that don't use the slash and pillage method of logging. A piece of land behind my mom's old house in East Texas was marked that way and we watched one truck load a day come out. When they were done there was kind of a mess, but by the next summer you couldn't find it. The big logging corporations feel that they can't make money at one load a day, but three guys and a truck seem to be doing OK.

David
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
" but three guys and a truck seem to be doing OK."

Just let them add 6 VP's of whatever, an entire HR department, retain attorneys, hire a PR firm, janitorial firm, some Safety officers and suddenly, one truck load a day isn't going to work anymore...

Regards,

Mike
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Once you add an HR department and safety officers NOTHING works anymore (to say nothing of lawyers).

There is a TV show on PBS in the U.S. called "Ask This Old House". A few weeks back they showed us how to use a chain saw. Not a single one of the tips they showed were being used by the guys behind my mom's house. I worked in the log woods in High School (my primary job was skiding logs out with a mule, I am that old). If someone had showed up in ANY of that safety gear they would have been laughed out of the woods--hard hats with attached hearing protection, steel-toed boots (Kevlar over the ankle of course), leather chaps, full face shield, gloves with gauntlets to the elbow, etc. We wore shorts, tee shirts, and tennis shoes, some wore gloves because getting hit with small limbs whipping around stung (most didn't), no eye protection, no hearing protection, certainly no chaps or gauntlets. We all lived. In fact I only remember one fatal accident and two hospitalizations in my county over the six years I knew anything about the log woods. The nanny society is not really about protecting workers, it is about slowing down productivity so there will be more jobs.

David
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Anybody remember the 1970's cartoon " The cowboy after OHSA"
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I remember seeing the Cowboy after OSHA thing, but I can't remember any details.

David
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom