RFK Jr book - Crimes Against Nature
 

Crimes Against Nature : How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy

I saw RFK Jr talk about this on Bill Maher's show this week and he really struck me. The environment has been completely ignored in this election. I'm not some tree hugging hippy, but I don't plan on getting cancer any time soon. The way things are going, though, my plans could change fairly quickly.

It's sad. I'm not one to buy into whatever I hear and read, but some things are just too juicy to ignore, like the part about how GWB and many of his advisors are of the belief that the second coming is fast approaching and thus the resources of the earth are not important to conserve. I have seen so many fucked up things come from this administration that it's not too far of a stretch to believe bits like that.

So, you like your national security, huh? How do you like your grandchilden?

I personally haven't read or seen much on RFK Jr on this issue (I know that's his focus, I just haven't gotten to reading up on his comments).

But I found this article, published in the NYTimes as highly informative on the tactics used by this administration to fuck over the environment while changing the rules so they can claim they're improving things.

Long, but filled with very telling details of the issue of new-source review -

I know a few evangelicals who believe we are in the "Days of Revelation" - great guys all of 'em, but they've been conned by the "Left Behind" folks into thinking the world's about to end.

If the environment is really this bad, then John Kerry ought to have had a field day with it, right?

Since he has ignored the issue too, what makes you think he would make any real changes?

I don't expect John Kerry will be good for the environment - but I am quite certain he would not be as bad as Bush.

As to why Kerry has not made much of an issue of it (and to be clear, he has mentioned it a few times), I would say the apathetic nature of American's perception towards non-immediate calamity in contrast to the omnipresent "fear the wrath of the all powerful terrorist", prevents the issue from gaining much traction.

Halx, I remember back in the 1970's when they told us that we'd be able to walk in a direct line from Cleveland to Canada across Lake Erie without getting our feet wet by the year 2000 because it would be completely filled with debris by then. Relax.

That is called a strawman argument, daswig. Such tactics are only effective in solidifying a course of non-discussion.

Bling, "environmentalism" has become BIG business. I don't know if you realize just how much money is involved. I have a friend who was a charter member of Greenpeace Hawaii, who left because it stopped being about the problem and started being a cash cow. He tells very interesting stories. Their cash cow keeps producing ONLY as long as people are scared. Hence the relevance of the scare tactics of the 1970's.

One time, in bandcamp....


Mr Mephisto

I've worked with Greenpeace USA and I can tell you that they are in no way a "wealthy" organization. Perhaps your friend had found some bad people in Hawaii but please don't tar the entire organization based on one story.

Furthermore, the idea that environmentalism has become big business does not fit with my experiences with several different national environmental groups. The number one cause of activist attrition that I saw was the inablility to make a living doing full time organizing.

yeah trust me....greenpeace is anything but wealthy. Furthermore, daswig...guess why things didn't get as bad as they could have...WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I was horrfied to hear about Bush's "plan" to control forest fires was to cut down trees..."Healthy Forest" initiative my ass. It's accepted in the scientific community that every so often a forest fire is good for the forest itself. This clears brush and dead trees that can clutter and choke the forest.

The "Clear Skys" initiative basicly let's old outdated coal plants to continue to run...It defangs the clean air act nearly completely.

The Bush administration still hasn't given much recognition to the growing problem of global warming, which could cause unpredictable climate change. ( may be some models and such, but I don't know enough about that) yes Kyoto wasn't going to work, but, at the very least we could have renegotiated it instead of leaving the table completely.

Regardless of the veracity of this claim, you are still making a strawman argument.

If you state that apples are good for you, and I say "Wrong, I ate a rotten apple the other day, so apples are clearly not good for you" - I would be duplicating your form of argument in this thread. It is a strawman.

Ask Paul Watson why he's where he is now.

Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at Paul Watson, and there are many, I think that accusing him of "greed" may be the one that sticks the least. Some actual details about whatever it is your accusing him of would be helpful.

There may be a handful of large organizations like the Sierra Club that have a relatively large budget on the environmental NGO scale (which is very modest), but they are the exception, not the rule. Grass roots campaigning isn't known for it's fabulous financial rewards. Does anybody here seriously believe that anyone gets into activism for the money?

Actually, I wasn't leveling any criticism at Watson, he does miracles with what he has. What I was pointing out was why he is where he is now, instead of being part of a larger organization.

He's currently on the board of directors of the Sierra Club.

Uh huh, and Sea Shepherd is his sideline....RIIIIIGHT.....

Activists have a propensity for being in many groups at once.

From the Sierra club website:

daswig, you need a great big hug.

Hey everybody! Dont hug trees! Hug daswig!

My question is why would any human being who is not in a position of power or great wealth (and thus it does not affect them directly to take this stance) be *against* environmentalism? Seriously, it does you no harm (in fact it may even help you) to say, "Yeah, I agree, shit needs to be cleaned up." Yet some of you are content to shrug at it and go, "Fuck the earth! I'm only on it for another 60 years, tops. It aint gonna fall apart before then." How irresponsible.

Its not about being against *enviromentalism* Halx, its about using the enviroment as a political and finianial tool while retarding human progress.

These are the same people who still say we shouldn't thin the forests despite the huge forest fires we have had the last years due to the current un-natural state they are in.

I think I'm safe saying most hunters and fishermen vote republican, and this is a big part of why Kerry is trying so hard to look like a hunter this election. Now do you really think these types of people want to fuck up the enviroment? I love to fish, I hate dirty water, and over use of natural resources. The enviromentalists offer me nothing.

Having spent more time with these people than almost any of you, I can state they see people as the virus on the world and will do anything which keeps people 'away' from nature, no matter what the need.

I have spent quite a bit of time with "these" people, having a sister who is one. And have rarely seen the rabid version, not that I have never had to deal with them. You may generalize the movement as you see fit, and may have percieved that attitude from your experience, but it bears little resemblence to my own. Much of what you stated I have seen before....in speeches from candidates, but never from those I have been in contact with who are self proclaimed activists in the environmental movement.

That said....I do not claim you are incorrect...only that our experiences differ dramatically, and may do so as a result of personal perception, and pre-concieved attitudes we both have.

Why is the only response to Halx's post and the article I posted a bunch of strawman arguments?

Ustwo, daswig - sure, there are environmentalists who are so passionate that they are blinded in their methods of viewing reality. But the thread was started and followed with very compelling evidence that there are also people who are either so dispassionate about the environment or are so passionate about exploiting the environment that they are causing serious damage. And one of those people (George Bush) happens to not only be in a position to cause much more harm, but does in fact cause much more harm than someone sitting on the BofD of the Sierra Club.

You cannot in any way dismiss the negative impact to the enviroment and the double-talk of George Bush by stating "well, there are environmentalists who go too far and retard progress".

Bad idea. When people come towards me that I don't know, I get nervous. Very very nervous. It's a side effect of being gravely injured during the '89 riots and a few other things.

It depends on the kind of environmentalism being proposed. I have no problem with sensible environmentalism. You know, things like "please don't dump that 55 gallon drum of mercury into our fresh water supply", or "if you make a mess, clean it up" makes sense to me. The nutjob ELF and Earth Firsters are another matter entirely. Running around burning down condominiums and car dealerships ain't environmentalism, it's just plain old-fashioned nut-jobbery.

There's always going to be some exploitation of the environment. That is a GOOD thing. Without it, we'd all be either dead or living in caves, and I don't care to live in caves.

Enviromental arguments annoy me very quickly. This is because almost any repeal of enviromental regulation is always deemed a "Crime Against Nature" or worse, while no one calls into question the effectiveness of the regulations. Did these regulations really help the enviroment? In what way? Is there sound scientific data that proves the regulations work? For any enviromental regulation we should have quantifiable data that measures the cost to the enviroment vs the cost of human resources. If the regs are disproportionately detrimental to the humans that struggle behind them, compared the their enviromental benifit then they should be repealed.

Its just too damn easy for a politician to demonize another over enviromental issues.

In Alaska, we cannot log and sell beetle kill trees to provide jobs ect, we just get to watch them burn every year. Thanks Greenies.

Fires

this issue is so huge and so important in this election and the last one, that it has been virtually crushed off the radar is a testament to how successful the bush campaign has been at defining the issues and framing the entire election.

bush's environmental record is abhorent. while the hypothesis in RFKJRs book goes too far in my eyes, there is no debate that bush has chosen faith over fact and turned his back on science on every issue. he's proud of it, brags to his base about it, and they cheer him while the reasoning world looks on aghast.

if you find yourself saying that environmentalists hurt economic growth, put the kool-aid down and step away from the PACs and non-profits on both sides. the overwhelming voice of academia on this issue is impossible to ignore, but hard to simplify into a campaign trail soundbite.

our economic future absolutely depends upon smart management of our natural resources, conservation of our environment, and development of new technologies and industries. Al Gore spoke to this effect between sighs in the 2000 debates, but big business and old industry won out when the votes were miscounted.

at the present rate of climate change, we are 50 years away from turning colorado's mountain pastures into arizona's deserts. when that happens, the breadbasket of middle america's fertile farm land will be in canada's tundra and we will lose our greatest business.

19 states have levels of mercury that endanger unborn children when pregnant women eat fish or drink the water. yet the same people that vote to protect the unborn from abortion, vote for policies that allow the coal industry to cause birth defects and relax the legal process that might hold them accountable later.

the american auto industry said that cars couldn't be made profitably that got 50 miles to the gallon and produced acceptible emission levels. then toyota proved them wrong, and they lobbied to impede imports. we call ourselves free market patriots and ignore that if every car in america got 40 miles to the gallon, we would have no dependency on foreign oil and could rewrite our policies in the middle east free of our petrochemical addiction.

kerry's environmental voting record is one of the best in congress (www.vote-smart.org). he has been for 20 years, what is the word... "a leader?"

the choice is clear, but it is not simple.

This is what happens when your leaders are people who can't take the majesty of nature into account.
When you believe the Grand Canyon was carved in 40 days by a worldwide flood, you have less respect for it's preservation.

This kind of CRAP Wouldn't happen under a sane administration.
http://www.christianpost.com/upload_...ries_314_0.jpg
When you think this kind of thing was created instantaneously or some such, and that it's been there only for a few thousand years, your respect is diminished and your thoughts to exploiting it/spoiling it for profit are greater.

Two excellent posts. Others seem content to hold up extremist groups as their defense while ignoring simple logic that we don't have to be gung-ho, but rather just *active* - which we haven't been at all over the last 4 years.

There has been plenty of activism from the lunatic fringe animal rights groups. For example, they tried to give away comic books to toddlers of adults who were wearing fur at the Boston Nutcracker. What part of that could people oppose? Well:

<img src="http://www.furisdead.com/images/mommykills_comichead.jpg" /img>

I dunno...giving this to four year olds is just their First Amendment right, isn't it?

So what's your point?

We all know PETA are head cases. But because some one tried to scare a child, it means we should continue raping the Earth?

You've lost me.


Mr Mephisto

Didja ever think maybe the earth consented?

;)

Didja hear about the problem with the parks in California? Seems that in a fit of PC-ness, some people decided that the BSA couldn't use the parks. Unintended consequence? She state of the parks are declining, since the BSA did lots of community service preservation stuff.

BSA=non-gay friendly, but good conservationists.
PETA=Bizzare-o nutjobs.
So which group should we support?

Earth consented.... :) Funny.

I can't comment on the California issue, as I don't know anything about it.

But I think we're both in agreement that PETA are head cases (as we say in Ireland).



Honestly, I find it disappointing and depressing that Conservatives... sorry, conservatives, use the actions of extremists to justify not supporting environmentalism. It's all about putting profit over sustainability and ensuring the quick buck as opposed to keeping people and the planet healthy and retaining some of its beauty.

Sometimes, just sometimes, it's good to pass over the ability to make maximum profits when it would cause longer term problems.

Consider this analogy. I live in a house. I could go outside and dig up all the plants and rose bushes in my garden and sell them at the flea-market down the road. I would make some money, but my garden would be destroyed.

I could rip off the roof tiles and strip out all the copper wiring and sell them both at the flea-market. But this would also make my house less healthy, less pleasant to live in.


Poor analogy, but the idea being that we shouldn't always think in a short-term profit focussed manner. Put another way, what's wrong with protecting the environment, the few remaining wildernesses?


Mr Mephisto

I'd like to inject a bit of sanity:

Neither the President or his advisors think the world is going to end soon. No one who is a part of the Bush administration believes the Grand Canyon was formed in 40 days. Why do people accept and perpetuate such lies?

This is getting silly.

C'mon daswig.....your weak rebuttal to the Bush regime's gutting of a successful, 25 year effort fought by the EPA to improve the biggest source of
toxic and irritant emissions into our atmosphere is incompatible with your
credentials. Treason takes on many guises........

The references below offer a persuasive argument that, just as the operators
of the heaviest polluting coal fired power plants in the U.S. began to capitulate by entering into agreements with the EPA, after 25 years of
non-compliance, litigation, and health damaging, illegal emissions of toxins,
such as excessive levels of mercury, Bush, Cheney and their appointees
pre-empted and gutted power industry compliance enforcement by putting
the Department of Energy in chanrge of Environmental Protection.

An easy to understand example is a comparison of Tampa Electric (TECO),
and Southern Company, both operators of highly polluting coal fired power
plants. In 2000, TECO made the decision to enter into an agreement with
EPA to pay a $3.5 million fine for it's illegal emissions, and to spend $1.4 billion
on coal plant upgrades and pollution controls.
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=23860">Georgians Choke Through a Smog-filled Summer</a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=23500">EPA UNVEILS NEW LOOPHOLES FOR POLLUTING POWER PLANTS</a>
<a href=""></a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=23220"> Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health</a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=22420">Latest Toxics Inventory Shows
Power Plants Continue To Be Major Threat</a>
<a href="http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=22320">Bush Administration Pollution Plan Falls Short</a>
Southern Company, parent of Alabama Power, Georgia Power, and of power companies in North Carolina, continued to resist the EPA via litigation, a $23 million ad campaign to portray itself as a "good corporate citizen", launching the largest lobbying effort in the U.S. on the congress, and by generous campaign contributions to effect changes in congress and the executive branch that led to the sell out of the public and the environment that we are seeing today. The immediate results are dirtier air in the southeast.

No.....not silly. Criminal, treasonous......but not silly!
Please do some research to educate us as to how Bush and his administration
are being maligned. Are Bush and Cheney taking steps to insure that the air
that I breathe and that my chidren breathe will be cleaner next year than it
is today? Post your linked references, persuade us that Bush represents the
interests of the people of the U.S. in environmental protection policy.

Ooh I believe that Ashcroft DOES believe the Canyon was carved in 40 days.
He's a christian fundamentalist. Chrisitian fundamentalists take the bible at it's word and the word of the bible states the earth is approximately 6000 years old.
I believe Bush believes this also, he too is a christian fundamentalist who was converted, largely, with the help of Billy Graham.

And the kinds of people that Bush would appoint to positions like this, likely follow his brand of morality.

I don't think christian fundamentalism is the largest force in desecration of the earth. I think it is a dominant one, but ignorance, shortsightedness and greed are higher on the totem pole.
But those reasons are well known and have been fleshed out plenty. The Fundie reason isn't as clear.

with whatever respect is due... that really isn't a response to my post. Also, a very small minority of Christian fundamentalists believe the young earth theory. I guess all I have to offer is my own anecdotal evidence... but I'm surrounded by fundamentalists like you wouldn't believe (seriously, i think i would get a few laughs if i told everyone the full story) and I've yet to meet someone who believes the grand canyon was made in 40 days.

it's so much easier to believe such crazy things about people who view the world differently than you.

First off what did Clinton due differently then Bush with regards to the environment?

Answer: Basically nothing.

Kyoto treaty was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-99. That’s a pretty strong statement.

And who remembers the arsenic in the water deal right when Bush took office. Well since I don’t think many of you understand it, let me splain it. Arsenic exists in the natural environment. Very small amounts are in the water in some places. Rules were put up to mandate its removal, based on the idea that if X amount of arsenic is the LD50 (lethal dose 50, look it up if you don’t know) then if you take a straight line down the curve, X/whatever would kill a small % of the people. So for example if 100 grams would kill 500k of 1 million people then 1 gram would kill 5000 people. The problem is biology doesn’t work in a linear fashion. Lets take an example most of you would understand. We all know people can die of alcohol poisoning, you drink too much, you die. Does that mean that some people will die of alcohol poisoning after a sip of wine? No, it doesn’t work that way, and while one person might take more alcohol to kill then the next, there is a base level that must be reached before there is a problem. What Bush did was get rid of BAD SCIENCE, rules that sounded good, but did nothing except cost a ton of money. He got rid of government waste and was willing to take the political hit to do the right thing.

So don’t give me the Bush is bad for the environment BS. Bush is bad for wackos who want to use the environment as an excuse for other agendas, but that’s about it.

This is pretty much false.

Opie please explain.

lol, you have the audacity to make a statment like this and then try to label people as "bizzare-o nutjobs?" Mr. Kettle I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot.
I didn't hear about this "problem" and I won't enter a debate structured around a logical fallacy. This isn't an either-or question. We can choose to support BSA or PETA or both or niether.

on BSA: It's sad that an organization that has done such good things for young men and our country is being hamstrung by political decisions their national leaders. Local Boy Scout troops, thankfully, have little or nothing to do with the national organization which has recently decided to become discriminatory and exclusionary. My Boy Scout troop contained gay scouts (gasp!) and atheists (lordy!) and we got along just fine. Our troop was actually the most active in terms of camping and service in our area, that's why my family chose it. If supporting BSA means supporting discrimination and exclusion of minorities then no, we shouldn't support them. I still hold on to my Eagle badge because of the memories I had of an open-minded troop (and also the certificate was signed by Bill Clinton :) ).

My on-topic question for you daswig: Didja ever get really angry that you'll never see a full herd of buffalo stampeding over the American prairie? Or that you can't just go hunt a buffalo for your winter's food? Instead we use the prairie to grow grain to feed cattle which we get to buy (literally) piecemeal at Wal-mart. Hurrah for human progress!

My research persuades me that belief in a literal interpretation of genesis is
widespread, as is a belief in "young earth" theory:

Where's the evidence of leadership in the promotion of scientific teaching
from Bush or Cheney?

The poll results above demonstrate that even without the effects of the
current movement by fundamentalist christians to alter the curriculum
emphasis and content that will be taught in public schools, a surprising number of adults held believes about creation and evolution that differed
sharply from those of 95 percent of scientists. Do a search on google for
the term "creationist geologists", your research will surprise you. This
Timothy Lahaye rapture theme hardcover book, "Glorious Appearing: The End of Days (Left Behind #12)" is the 423rd best seller at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842332359/qid%3D1099255285/102-8877083-1427363">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842332359/qid%3D1099255285/102-8877083-1427363</a>

Jimmy Carter protested a plan earlier this year by the Georgia State education
commissioner to drop the word "evolution" from public school curriculum:
And.....in Kansas:

bah...

still waiting for a shred of evidence to back up the hilariously outrageous things i pointed out before.

even if you believe those poll results, you're drawing visibly false conclusions from it.

under the creationism section it says...
first, the question pigeonholes everything that may fall under the creationism umbrella. what if you believe man was created 11,000 years ago? there are many many ways to hold a creationism view without placing the birth of humanity within such a timeline. even if you do think man was made as we are now within the last 10,000 years... it says nothing about the earth before man was made. that maybe a "young man" theory, but it's irrelevant to a young earth theory. additionally, people of MANY religions hold that their God is the source of creation. you're taking the percentage of all people who believe in creationism and attributing the entire set to fundamentalist Christians.

You posted an opinion, I attempted to refute your opinion with polling data
on the same subject from a reputable source, and you simply dismissed the
signifigance of the polling data with more of your unreferenced opinion and
interpretation of the content and validity of the polling data. Did it take you
more than 5 minutes to accomplish that? I'd like to learn new things from you.

I could post so much more often if I confined my posts to personal opinion.
Every time I decide to respond to an unreferenced opinion post, I learn
something new while researching my response, and if you do, too, then that
is another positive reason to put the time into participating here.

Please try to understand humor when it's presented to you.

As for seeing a plains full of buffalo, frankly, if I did, I'd machinegun them. Not out of malice, or joy of killing, but simply because they're tasty eating, and because I've always wanted a nice buffalo-hide furniture suite.

Spotted owl dipped in oil and deep fried = Dinner.

daswig, that's just abhorrent for you to say (Whether or not you believe it). And it's troll baiting.

There ARE several boards appropriate to humor on TFP. This , at Times is one of them. It would likely be beneficial to all in this debate if the sarcastic joking was put aside in favor of serious discussion.

This will hopefully, keep the participants from bursting into flames.

host,

i appreciate you going to the lengths of trying to find concrete data to address admittedly anecdotal notions. but, the conclusions you drew from that data were very plainly inappropriate. my acceptance or dismissal of the poll data is irrelevant so long as the interpretation is demonstratably flawed. and no, it didn't take me 5 minutes to respond to the poll data... it took much less than that. please don't talk of sidestepping or dismissal while my original post on this thread goes unchallenged.

Which part, the machinegunning of buffalo or the fried owl bit?

I'm dead serious about machinegunning the buffalo. Look at how the Native Americans harvested them. At least one way of harvesting them used by the Native Americans was to stampede the herd off of a cliff, and then collect tehir dead bodies after they hit. A machinegun would just be less damaging to the body of the animals, and much more controllable and safer to the harvester.

As for the spotted own bit, extinction is sometimes a GOOD thing. It's nature's way of saying "Enough! You didn't cut it. NEXT!!!" to an entire species. Everybody goes "Yay Evolution!" and thinks it's a great thing. But the dark side of evolution is that the less sucessful species die off. It's part of the natural order. That's like people who say "we MUST have our cars!" but refuse to allow oil drilling, or the NIMBY folks who refuse to allow the construction of power plants near them, and then can't understand why they have brownouts when demand exceeds capacity.

As soon as we start placing human intervention into the natural order, we can do anything and it's a "GOOD thing".

We could kill all black people - they're in the minority, so it would just be evolution. We could pour toxic waste into our streams - and the people that suffer from it are simply suffering from the natural order.

There is obviously a distinction between the natural order as dictated by man and the natural order as dictated by nature. Whether you choose to recognize the difference or not.

So mankind is not part of the natural order? Hate to do the chicken and the egg thing, but if mankind isn't part of the natural order, how did we get here? Are you a scientologist or something?

That's not what I said.

So you're saying that mankind is different than the natural order?

I'm seriously trying to understand where you come from. Mankind isn't that special. There are other animals that use tools, language, et cetera. So if we're not part of the natural order, what are we?

You're trying to lump the free will of humans into the natural order as a means of excusing behavior that many people consider inappropriate, simply because you do no consider it inappropriate.

I could walk outside and kill someone and use your excuse that it was simply all acceptable according to the "natural order".

Your argument, the dissolution of the responsibility of mankind due to mankind being an element of the natural order, is false.

Ummm, but aren't violent human-like behaviors seen throughout nature? For example, during dominance struggles, don't animals sometimes get killed? Don't some animals kill their own young? Don't some animals ostracize other animals? Beat other animals? Scar up other animals as a sign of their displeasure, reducing them in rank?

What makes humans so special (besides the obvious "we were created in God's image, so other animals must serve us" mentality) that we get a separate category?

Humanity are meat socks, just like the rest of the animals on the planet.

You should really study the differences between humans and animals a little more closely.

Some violent human-like behaviors are seen throughout nature. But not all violent human behaviors are seen throughout nature.

You're suggesting a Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law philosophy - but without demonstrating the depth of understanding of what that actually means. On top of that, you're suggesting that simply because something can be destroyed, it is ok to destroy it. It's pure nihilism.

wait, I thought I was supposed to be a Compassionate Conservative??? When did I turn into a nihilist??? Was my wife warned or notified???

what exactly makes mankind different from the rest of nature? And isn't whatever your answer is merely an example of a specist belief structure?

There are so many differences between humans and the rest of nature that I can't believe your question is truly being posed in good faith. I'll list one, the most important and obvious:

Degree of intelligence. Humans have a much higher degree of ability to work through problems than do any other animal.

I'm not going to walk you through the vast ramifications of this, because you have the ability to do that yourself.

There are several animals that are as smart, if not smarter, than human beings in many ways. Do they build nukes? No. Why not? Probably because they're smarter than we are.

Daswig,

You're trolling again. You should really stop.

If you honestly believe that extinction caused by the result of human intervention is part of the normal evolutionary process, you are misguided. However, please feel free to start a seperate thread to discuss this. It's a very interesting and topical subject.

Beforehand, you may wish to read some books by Mayr, Gould, Dennett, Dawkins, Ridley, Dobzhansky et al. If I was to recommend one book on this subject for you to educate yourself, it would be Daniel C Dennets Darwin's Dangerous Idea (ISBN: 068482471X). Or, if you are feeling short of time, try Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is, an excellent primer for beginners.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...982080-9378247

I'd be more than happy to debate the "merits" of your opinion that machine-gunning buffalo or industralized logging are just normal features of species extinction. In a seperate thread.


Mr Mephisto

If humans pollute the oceans so much that dolphins decide to put a stop to it - what are they going to do to solve the problem? They might start attacking humans (assuming they're even able to determine that humans are the actual cause) but they're not going to be able to solve the problem.

There are no animals that have the intelligence of humans to solve problems. That is why we are at the top of the food chain and it is why we do not indiscriminantly destroy.

We do not indiscriminately destroy? I thought that was what this was all about...our indiscriminately destroying things.

How is human-caused extinction of a species significantly different from any other predator-caused extinction of a species?

Prior to humanity's coming on the scene, at least 95%+ of all species were already extinct, yes? Or do you subscribe to the notion that humanity caused the extinction of the dinosaurs by over-hunting them?

Naturally I was speaking about the potential of humanity.

But yes, if we left it up to you - we would indiscriminantly destroy.

The actual statistic is 99.9%. That is, 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Extinction is not evolution. I think you may have got your terms mixed up.

Predation is also significantly different from extinction caused by pollution or (human) destruction of natural habitats.

Now, evolution has been driven by the results of human impact upon the environment. The general darkening of tree moths in Nothern England during the early phases of the Industrial Revolution is a prime example (the moths camoflage darkened as the result of the soot left on trees).

But stating that wholesale slaughter of animals with automatic weapons is just another manifestation of "natural extinction" (and therefore evolution) is simply untrue.


Mr Mephisto

I thought it was something like that, but didn't want to go to the trouble of digging up the exact figures or having somebody scream "SOURCE???" at me. Now that figure is your problem. ;)

Nope, I didn't mix them up. Extinction is the flip side of evolution. If an organism doesn't evolve, it runs a very real risk of losing it's niche due to the evolution of it's competition for that niche. It's the old "running as fast as you can just to stay even" scenario. If you stay put, you're most likely going to lose. There are exceptions to this (diatoms, sharks, alligators, opossums spring to mind) but by and large, the competition is "fro'cious", and if you don't evolve you risk losing your spot, which can easily lead to extinction.

I don't have the exact figure handy, but species are going extinct at a much faster rate now than they were before humans began having a major impact on the global environment. But we need more space for apartments, who cares about the permanent erasure of a few measly species?

People will start worrying when it starts cutting into their profits. We have dominion over the earth, right? On the other hand, if lack of sleep + carbon monoxide causes you to pass out at the wheel, your death will never be counted.

Haha... well, if you want the source I can give it you. It's one of those "fluffy" statistics anyway, as not even all species that currently exist have been identified and/or classified. If anything, the figure is higher. :)

It's not really. There is no "flip side" to evolution. It is unavoidable result of development based upon sexual reproduction, taking environmental factors, adaptation and mutation into account. Evolution is "caused" (or actioned, if you will) by adaptation which drives speciation. Gould et al proposed a theory of punctuated equilibrium that takes the emphasis off gradual adaptationism, but that isn't universally accepted and doesn't change the underlying precepts.

Agreed. And machine-gunning buffalo isn't competition. :)

Well, I'm not going to argue, per se, with any of those comments. They are more or less correct. However, the point is that extinction is NOT inevitable (a species can reach a summit in a "fitness landscape" to coin Dennet's term), nor is it "natural" when humans massacre creatures or destroy landscape. In those circumstances, it's impossible for the species to adapt, as the change in circumstances (either forests being torn down or bullets slamming into their bodies) is so rapid that "evolution" does not have a chance to work.

It's a very interesting subject, and one of my favourite topics, so I'd be delighted to discuss further in another thread. :)


Mr Mephisto

PS - Those book recommendations weren't meant to be snooty... on rereading the post it may have come across that way. They are honest to goodness excellent books on this fascinating subject. I can recommend a whole bunch more if you're honestly interested, rather than trying to troll. :)

In years gone by, I've read some of them. Gould sticks in my mind...