Wim
> By the way, the 'environmentalist's dream' you scorn looks a little bit like
> mine.
I did not scorn the 'environmentalist's dream' but I do question the
means used in the attempt to achieve it and the net results achieved.
The Kyoto agreement in my opinion is just a global example of these means
and would likely if implemented achieve the same net results. And yes I
also, like Roger, question the costs, but more importantly I question
permanent net loss of freedom for everyone.
First we, both agree
> Indeed, 'higher level patterns that destabilize lower ones or visa versa, to
> the extent that they endanger the whole or significant parts of the
> hierarchy, do so at their own peril',
and your addition is correct.
> For me the above points to a social pattern of values destabilizing a
> biological pattern of values at its own peril.
We then extend this to the inorganic level and we have the full scope.
Let's get into the means and results. But first let's qualify it by
saying this is primarily an American perspective based principally on my
experiences.
First the modern American environmental movement for all the rhetoric to
the contrary is firmly rooted in an SOM worldview. It privileges,
worships if you will, the objective world of nature, out there. The
inorganic and particularly the biological level. And Man, the subject,
is a usurper and interloper in this natural world.
No, no, no, you immediately object. What about the Gaia hypothesis and
its ilk?
Everything is integral part of one giant organism? Great, but then in
the next breath, they go on to say, but this part, "you",
"human","subject" are a serious f**kup, are endangering, destroying, the
whole system. And this argument is, as we all well know, not without
some merit.
Means number one of the modern American enviromental movement is: FEAR.
Instill the fear that "you", "human","subject" are a serious f**kup and
are endangering, destroying, the whole system.
Means number two is a combination of science and the shift in worldview
manifested by discoveries in the physical sciences, specifically quantum
mechanics. Worldviews have and are shifting from the determined,
mechanical, Cartesian one, from A causes B, to ones that try to account for
the indeterminacy of quantum physics. But as we all well know, no clear
winner has yet to emerge to take over the Cartesian mantle. We are
swimming in a sea of Post-Modernist doubt. Everything is relative,
contextual, probable, improbable, shades of grey.
This indeterminacy at the inorganic level has been shifted by the
enviromental movement up to the biological level and used to great
advantage. Their argument is; If some human action has any possible
negative biological or physical consequences and if it can't be
DETERMINED that these consequences are improbable, you then have to
concede that it is probable, and act as though this is the case.Thus
before you can act you must find some method, any method, to make up for
any negative consequences.
For instance, in the time of DDT, science DETERMINED that it built up in
the food chain by the thinning the shell of eggs in predator birds.It
was banned, some short term agricultural woes but by and large an
increase in environmental quality . Based on successes like that one,
fast forward 20 years to now, in the Ozarks where I live and the rare,
threatened, blind Ozark Cave Fish,
(http://www.agfc.state.ar.us/critters/endangered_species_p2.html). Now
we enter the world of modern environmental scientific probablity. (While
at this site also check out the cave crayfish just below the cave fish
particularly the last paragraph)
The Ozark Cave Fish has only been found in very small numbers in "seven
[specific known caves] in northwest Arkansas", where I live. However
because of the area geology, it is "possible" for this species to live
in a large portion of a three state area. Thus any large scale project,
particularly new public works projects, highways, bridges, airports,
etc., even those far removed, outside the watershed of the known
locations, must search for them and even if not found ,only if it can
determine it is highly improbable they might exist there (which is
virtually impossible given the geology) those projects must integrate
into them means to protect this species both during and after
construction. Alway at increased costs. But its "public" money. Who
cares, were protecting the environment."
Since this species was discovered it's known locations have decreased
from 24 to 21 the possible reasons suggested (at this site) for this are:
"A very low reproductive rate is one reason for their rarity. Cavefish
may be 16 years old before first spawning. Only 20 percent spawn each
year. Twenty to 25 eggs are incubated in the female's gill chamber until hatching."
"Illegal collection by pet dealers is a great threat to these unusual
fish. Removing even small numbers can seriously affect a population for
years and may even destroy it."
"Groundwater pollution from sewage, livestock wastes and toxic compounds
is another threat, one compounded by growing human populations and
industrial development in the Ozarks."
And in the 3 cases of these disappearances to date, scientists have not
been able with any degree of certainty to conclude which of these, or
find any other reason, that might be the cause. All they know
empirically is their gone. Yet look at the conclusion they draw.
"By protecting the habitat of a few cavefish, we are also protecting our
own habitat, for much of the drinking water in areas where Ozark
cavefish live is groundwater. Ozark cavefish are indicators of
environmental health. If they start disappearing, something is wrong."
Something is wrong. What? It certainly couldn't be "A very low
reproductive rate" no, no,... it's "You", "human","subject". You are a
serious f**kup and
are endangering, destroying, these poor innocent blind creatures".
Means number four. Though the use of means one and two,
fear+science+probablistic worldview, slowly and incrementaly enact
legistlation at the local,state, national, and global level to protect
the environment.
Means five. Use this legistlation, as a means to stop, delay, or render
financially impossible all developments which will impact the
environment. And where this is politically or legally impossible force
the construction and operating costs to a level where the next time a
project of this type is contemplated is will cause anyone to seriously pause.
Lest you think these are all a figment of my vivid imagination. Let me
assure you they are not. They were, minus my particular "case"
embellishments, given to me by a former area director of the Sierra
Club, who is a very good friend. About five years ago I seriously
thought about joining some politically active enviromental group and
talked to him about them. Basically he said they have limited resources,
so they choose their battles very carefully. But once chosen no quarter
is given , they fight by any method that is legal, and would rather
accept defeat than compromise. To paraphrase he said the founder of the
club put it this way, "When we are down to the last tree, which branch
would you have me saw off for firewood?"
And they're very good at it, just a few "hippies", "folksingers", and
"student activists" started in the 60's and a mere 40 years later have
helped create major government agencies dedicated to 'saving the
environment' in most all of the major governments of the world.
Here's the history of the birth of one of them, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm
Kinda' brings tears to your eyes don't it.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST