Akhila Sachidanandam
There was a time when man totally depended on nature for his survival. He ate vegetables from the plants, fruits from the trees and ate meat of animals. He lived out doors, in harmony with the nature. There was a ‘perfect balance’. The scenario today has changed tremendously, yet the consequence bears an irony – in our attempt to become more independent of nature and dependent on technology, we are unconsciously destroying nature. Biodiversity, nature conservation, global warming are much discussed topics today, the primary reason not being that it arouses many people’s interest, but it demands the attention of the hour. Man, in his ‘greed to comfort’ and to increase the average lifespan, has been slowly but steadily poisoning the elixir of life – air and water.
World population increasing at exponential rates is directly proportional to depletion of natural resources, global warming and eventually loss of biodiversity. In an attempt to conserve nature, UN has been emphasizing on international agreements to build national parks world wide. Numerous nature conservation projects across the globe have been funded by the UN which has enabled conservation of various endangered species. Denmark, in this respect, has committed itself to safeguard and combat the loss of biodiversity by 2010. National parks establishment is perhaps the best way to reach the goal given that, wild life thrives best in their natural habitat. Accordingly, the government has launched pilot projects for the same and is expected to execute them through the next three years. About two centuries ago, natural habitats such as dunes, health lands, coastal meadows, fresh water meadows, dry grasslands and marshes accounted for 60% of the land in Denmark. Today, this estimation has dropped down to a shocking nine percent. The reason is obvious – population has been increasing at a rapid rate in Denmark. It is among the most densely populated countries of Europe now. However, they are now intent on reviving their natural assets.
‘Thy’ in northwest ‘Jutland’ even today retains some dunes, moors and lakes, said to cover an area of 24000 hectares will be the first to be inaugurated in august this year. The second national park adorns a diamond on its crown with a sea habitat. In addition, it also includes the already preserved Mols Bjerge hills, Stubbe Lake and Ebeltofte city. With the eastern Jutland ice front running across the area, this national park makes it the most awaited of the five. Next in line is Skjern Å, spread across 25,000 hectares. This project is Europe’s largest natural marsh regeneration project. The largest of all, Vadehavet, which would cover 140,000 hectares, is a boon to the migratory birds and a pleasure to philanthropists. The fifth national park stretching across 39000 hectares, north of Copenhagen, is expected to be inaugurated in autumn of next year. This would cover parts of two cities, Gribskov forest and Arresø Lake.
What was once unthinkable and assumed to be not feasible, years ago, for highly populated cum mediocre countries is being proved to soon become a possibility. Denmark is an example. Investment on such nature conservation and sanctuaries establishment projects along side technological advancements only will transform the world into a wholesome place for both survival and development. Although the plan of action would involve government and huge organizations, ultimately, it boils down to an individual’s attitude and co-operation. It is high time an alarm message is spread to heal the world, for a better living.
News Source:Thecopenhagenpost
The scandinavian nations have, for some time now, been very forward looking in initiating programs to maintain a human-nature harmony. Living close to the poles where the ‘real environment’ lies, this is no surprise.
hope, they continue to keep the good work, while also inspiring others to follow.
Thank God… atleast the Scandinavian’s wakes for the alarm…….
Let this initiative and the attitude of other scandinavians be a lesson to other European & American giants, people should be more conscious in their actions toward environment.
We lost about 90 million hectares of forest cover of our planet during the last decade of the previous millenium – mainly due to loses in Africa and South America. If every country decides to take up Denmark’s example, maybe we can delay the sci-fi movies coming true….
Mankind IS Natural. Environmentalism is not about harmony with nature; it is about misanthropy. The primary consequence of every environmentalist action ultimately comes down to debilitating the lives of humans, especially the richer ones.
When DDT was banned in 1972 the *worldwide* mortality due to malaria had declined to only 50 people. That mortality now exceeds 1.5 million people a year and more than half of those are children. That single, but not only, cause of death by environmentalism kills more people every five years than did Hitler’s death camps.
Many of the more activist types are driven by a resentful envy, and use environmentalism as a tool to ‘get at’ people they otherwise could not touch. Most do it by invoking government coercion, not by actually putting their money and efforts into private ownership of lands that they wish to keep undisturbed. Indeed, if they did this, and an area proved to be of enormous economic value they could sell that area and use the money to buy larger areas elsewhere if they so chose.
Particularly despicable is the fact that every environmentalist crisis is blatantly phony. This is recognizable simply by grasping which facts are of fundamental importance and which are derivative. Global temperatures have been cycling by an amplitude of about 5 deg. Celsius for 800 million years due to changes in solar output, the changing shape of the Earth’s orbital ellipse, and the wobble (precession) of its axis of rotation. Cosmic radiation decidedly effects cloud cover. Mars and Venus change their temperature in lock step with Earth, but no industry occurs on those planets. The greenhouse gases claimed to influence out global temperature constitute less than 3% of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, of which water is by far the largest. Man’s influence over that 3% is minimal, so proscribing human activity will have no effect. Long term data shows many occasions when warming has occurred and CO2 has not rise, and conversely shown rising CO2 without warming. These are fundamentals. Polar bears, receding glaciers (while others advance), a hot summer, a big hurricane, etc. are not.
The argument from overpopulation is equally absurd. If the entire population of the world were placed in Texas, USA, the population density would equal that of downtown Paris, France. There is enough arable land to feed many times the present world population –starvation is strictly a matter of political corruption (read: non-Capitalist).
The sci-fi movies will not come true. Movies and pictures do not make an argument, simply an emotion which may have no bearing on reality whatsoever… that is an inconvenient truth. The false propaganda of intellectual quacks like Gore, Suzuki and the UN’s IPCC must be dismissed as the irrational, unscientific, misanthropy it truly is.
This is the corrupt nature of environmentalism, but it succeeds because most people want the planet to stay pretty. They do not realize, and perhaps find hard to believe, that environmentalism is anti-man, anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-reason.
Well i can not agree more what the Scandinavian nations have started will motivate others.
To Mr RnBram, what your post says is right,that the cycle of climate change has been going on from always, but this isn’t about it, the environmentalists DO know about that, this one is not natural,and that’s why it’s so frightening, there have been 2 ice ages before but they were natural, nature does make changes, but the changes which are damaging are made by us, humans.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), which accounts for 62 percent of greenhouse gases found in the earth’s atmosphere, rose by 0.47 percent compared with 2003,that’s about 2006
The percentage of these gases has risen from 3 to 5 a long time ago, speeding the most after the world wide industrial boom which has started from last 100 years
If we stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere now, it would take 50 to 100 years before we start to see approaches to pre-industrial levels.
The concentration of nitrous oxide, which represents six percent of greenhouse gases, went up 0.22 percent in 2004 and by 18 percent since 1750
Our hand in climate change, is something that should not have been there and that’s what we, environmentalists are trying to remove, and of course we want our planet to stay pretty as you call it, it’s not about making it look good, it’s about conserving it’s spirit.it gives and it takes and it chooses who will survive, but we have interrupted it’s process.do you actually think we “need” to take nature in our hands? did some species actually “help” in bringing the ice ages.
You are again right, many environmentalists have one main concern, money, many decisions in this world are taken while keeping in mind the good of the so called “rich people”.environmentalism is often misused, just as almost all the other things are. but does that make it “anti-man, anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-reason” ? sorry to say but no it doesn’t.
Your post, gives the feeling,” environmentalists are wrong” but i would suggest you try and look by the other point of view, i did try yours but honestly, it doesn’t seem right.let nature take it’s own course,don’t interrupt, does any other creature apart from us?
Well i can not agree more what the Scandinavian nations have started will motivate others.
To Mr RnBram, what your post says is right,that the cycle of climate change has been going on from always, but this isn’t about it, the environmentalists DO know about that, this one is not natural,and that’s why it’s so frightening, there have been 2 ice ages before but they were natural, nature does make changes, but the changes which are damaging are made by us, humans.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), which accounts for 62 percent of greenhouse gases found in the earth’s atmosphere, rose by 0.47 percent compared with 2003,that’s about 2006
The percentage of these gases has risen from 3 to 5 a long time ago, speeding the most after the world wide industrial boom which has started from last 100 years
If we stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere now, it would take 50 to 100 years before we start to see approaches to pre-industrial levels.
The concentration of nitrous oxide, which represents six percent of greenhouse gases, went up 0.22 percent in 2004 and by 18 percent since 1750
Our hand in climate change, is something that should not have been there and that’s what we, environmentalists are trying to remove, and of course we want our planet to stay pretty as you call it, it’s not about making it look good, it’s about conserving it’s spirit.it gives and it takes and it chooses who will survive, but we have interrupted it’s process.do you actually think we “need” to take nature in our hands? did some species actually “help” in bringing the ice ages.
You are again right, many environmentalists have one main concern, money, many decisions in this world are taken while keeping in mind the good of the so called “rich people”.environmentalism is often misused, just as almost all the other things are. but does that make it “anti-man, anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-reason” ? sorry to say but no it doesn’t.
Your post, gives the feeling,” environmentalists are wrong” but i would suggest you try and look by the other point of view, i did try yours but honestly, it doesn’t seem right.let nature take it’s own course,don’t interrupt, does any other creature apart from us?
i am not sure if you’d read this or not , but the emotion your post creates,,,,
Well i can not agree more what the Scandinavian nations have started will motivate others.
To Mr RnBram, what your post says is right,that the cycle of climate change has been going on from always, but this isn’t about it, the environmentalists DO know about that, this one is not natural,and that’s why it’s so frightening, there have been 2 ice ages before but they were natural, nature does make changes, but the changes which are damaging are made by us, humans.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), which accounts for 62 percent of greenhouse gases found in the earth’s atmosphere, rose by 0.47 percent compared with 2003,that’s about 2006
The percentage of these gases has risen from 3 to 5 a long time ago, speeding the most after the world wide industrial boom which has started from last 100 years
If we stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere now, it would take 50 to 100 years before we start to see approaches to pre-industrial levels.
The concentration of nitrous oxide, which represents six percent of greenhouse gases, went up 0.22 percent in 2004 and by 18 percent since 1750
Our hand in climate change, is something that should not have been there and that’s what we, environmentalists are trying to remove, and of course we want our planet to stay pretty as you call it, it’s not about making it look good, it’s about conserving it’s spirit.it gives and it takes and it chooses who will survive, but we have interrupted it’s process.do you actually think we “need” to take nature in our hands? did some species actually “help” in bringing the ice ages.
You are again right, many environmentalists have one main concern, money, many decisions in this world are taken while keeping in mind the good of the so called “rich people”.environmentalism is often misused, just as almost all the other things are. but does that make it “anti-man, anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-reason” ? sorry to say but no it doesn’t.
Your post, gives the feeling,” environmentalists are wrong” but i would suggest you try and look by the other point of view, i did try yours but honestly, it doesn’t seem right.let nature take it’s own course,don’t interrupt, does any other creature apart from us?
i am not sure if you’d read this or not , but the emotion your post creates should be talked about.
Diva has offered some common but remarkably wrong understandings and sentiments.
First Diva claims, “nature does make changes, but the changes which are damaging are made by us, humans.” Their is a hidden meaning in what environmentalists mean by this use of “damaging”.
Consider a bacterium that has evolved to the point that it is clearly performing photosynthesis. It lives when the world’s atmosphere is dominated by Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide. It is so successful, that by evolution it produces the all sorts of species that photosynthesize, ultimately including the entire Plant Kingdom. The resulting oxygen destroys nearly all other forms of life on Earth. That’s bloody damaging to those life forms!!
A giant meteor crashes onto the Earth and (some believe) takes out all dinosaurs. That’s bloody damaging to dinosaurs.
Evolution involves the creation of new species and the destruction of old. 99.99% of all species are extinct. That’s bloody damaging for those species.
Diva asks, “does any other creature apart from us?” let nature take it’s own course. The fact is that all species “take nature in [their respective] hands“. All species, including Mankind, ARE Natural. Mankind should, must and have the same absolute right and freedom to do so.
What all environmentalists really mean is that any change Mankind causes, is wrong. Since any living thing affects its surroundings, and causes change… the existence of Mankind is wrong, is unnatural, is something to despise, all in favor of the supposed perfection of Nature. Environmentalism IS misanthropy.
The name of the radical environmentalist group EarthFirst! sums up the misanthropy of environmentalism in two words. The clear intention of the name, really, is HumansLast! Which means the requirements of human life must be placed beneath the requirements of the lowest salamander, moss, or even rocks!! Yes, in this area the rocks of the Niagara Escarpment area are protected from quarrying, even though there is enough rock away from the main scenic areas to supply gravel and construction materials for several thousand years.
Environmentalism is also religion.
Diva, speaking of Nature, says Environmentalism is “about conserving it’s spirit“. What “spirit”? There are no spirits, no mystical supernatural beings, no Gaia, no higher causes… period. The only “spirit” left is each individual’s vision of what nature ought to be. Well, do not impose your ‘ought’ on me, you have no such Right. Such imposition is what the Spanish Inquisition, fascist dictatorships and murderous communist purges have been about.
Environmentalism is all the more obscene because there is no good evidence proving that man-made CO2 is causing climate change, let alone evidence that said change is enough to do any real harm. To legislate restrictions and costs –that will harm people’s lives– to *enforce* the most common of those dubious visions, using arguments by dubious science, is a profoundly immoral attack on the average man on the street just trying to live.
To make fun of the aforementioned environmental group, the proper approach is, “Earth First! We can strip mine the other planets later.” In the process of using the Earth, those who want to commit their profit to preserving certain areas or species, should do so by buying what they want in honest trade, rather than by the imposition of coercive force through laws achieved by political stumping. When people are free to become as rich as possible, not only does the lot of the poor improve, but so do the people of the future. The The bottom line to environmentalists, religionists, socialists, and statists of all kinds, without being too impolite, is –get the h_ll out of the way!
hum,let’s say you didn’t like me replying and opposing your views.anyway , you were also trying to [and still are]press your views over other,plainly speaking you think environmentalists are nonsense and fakers. here i am not trying to say you are entirely wrong neither am i coming in “your way” as you’ve added in the last line,i am expressing my views.when people read this,i wouldn’t want them to have just your view to think of but also what i have to say.let them choose what they wish to.
i agree, at times some environmentalists ask to ban certain things which actually do come in the way of the mankind’s progress, and those are not accepted,to say the truth ,very less number of the requests the environmentalists make is
accepted by the government or any one else.
when we say don’t waste energy, we also say develop other technology to use wind,sun and hydro.those are being developed and that’s the future,let me make it clear”environment conservation is NOT against development” we all know natural gas and coal etc will not last always, don’t you think mankind DOES need the alternative? or do you think it is going to last always?
now say what do the environment people ask for.
less polluting factories, if those measures are taken the annual production actually increases because of the removal of friction.this effects economy directly.
we ask for less polluting cars,means they should have more mileage,or do you think it’s good that people spend more money.
we ask that forests be preserved,they also attract tourists and don’t tall me you have some problem in breathing cleaner air.
we don’;t say “humans are the last,are at the bottom of the list of priority, it’s about not putting other creatures under us,not taking away their rights to live.
and the talk of spirit, i made a mistake,didn’t realize that this wasn’t a place where the concerned had anything to do with it.
and talk of immoral attack on people on streets trying to live,what wrong did environmentalists do to them?guess what those on the streets also want clean environment.
the rich who are reach will be more reacher and those who are poor will grow poorer if they will not try to come up.please say clearly what problem do you have against environmentalists other then “they are trying to stop human evolution”
do you know,most times the poor have to pay the most when the eco system becomes unbalanced.rich people were never much effected and never will be,unless it becomes impossible to survive, they will just buy houses in more cleaner and less polluted areas.environmental resources are the only way of income to many people.and those who earn by those do use it so much that it doesn’t have the time to recreate it self.
In 1986 the river Rhine was severely polluted by a chemical factory . Within 10 days the pollution had traveled the length of the Rhine and into the North Sea. killing almost all the fishes,do you know how many fishermen depended on that river.
After the Chemical spill in 1986 the Rhine Action Program (RAP) was developed, and adopted by all the countries bordering the Rhine. By the year 2000, the program aims to achieve a return to the river species such as the salmon which once thrived there. The use of the river for extracting drinking water is also safeguarded.even today,environment workers together with government workers,put 1000 little salmons in the river every year to increase the population
editing the mistakes in the last post
those who earn by those do not use it so much that it doesn’t have the time to recreate it self.
After the Chemical spill in 1986 the Rhine Action Program (RAP) was developed, and adopted by all the countries bordering the Rhine. By the year 2000, the program had aimed to achieve a return to the river species such as the salmon which once thrived there. By the year 2000.The use of the river for extracting drinking water is also safeguarded.(even today,environment workers together with government workers,have to put 1000 little salmons in the river every year to increase the population)
“you were also trying to [and still are]press your views over other,”
Why do so many people in a discussion always spit out this stupid line? What, are only those who agree with you allowed to speak, and those who disagree automatic anti-speech fanatics. You, diva, are entitled to your opinion, but you are not automatically entitled to being right or having others agree with you. That you have used such a line is, of itself, a sign of petulant irrationality. Grow up.
If you support ‘green’ laws that interfere with human action in economics, then you are an ADVOCATE of getting in the way of others, just as surely as the fundy Christian advocating censorship laws, or the Lefty advocating minimum wage laws, advocate getting in the way of others!
You have introduced too many issues.
1. So called green energy sources do not provide anything like enough energy to sustain the present system, let alone to encourage growth and advancement. Worse, when things like windpower actually start to look effective, the environmentalists reverse their stand and oppose it. They ARE against all human progress.
2. The solution to pollution is proper property laws that include air and water. If I own the stream or lake that I pollute fine, but if you own it (or a relevant part) you should sue me and if I AM doing you demonstrable harm you should win. Reducing pollution does not improve automobile efficiency when all factors (including manufacturing) are considered. Efficient cost-effectiveness does not mean Platonic Perfection.
3. The only long term energy solution entails two steps: nuclear fission as cheaply as possible so cheap energy a) makes electric autos a bargain, and makes the development of *fusion* power (completely non-polluting and non-radioactive) possible.
4. N. American forests have grown by 20% in the last 100 years. News media only report Rainforest destruction, with no mention of reclamation. So what, anyway, rainforest land enables Man oriented production.
5. Clean air? See #2
6. Rights are solely a function of Human Society, and make it possible for all citizens to productively and safely pursue their own lives. Rights arrive by a conceptual grasp of that fact, something no other organism can manage. Only humans have rights. We may like certain animals or plants, and appreciate that *pointless* cruelty and destruction is unhuman, but no other organism has a right to anything. But each human has the right to make such decisions witout the interference of other humans.
7. When the rich get richer, the poor get richer. It is not the gap between them that matters, it is that the poor have the freedom to get rich. Environmentalists pursue regulations that make it harder for the poor, while a few rich only come down a bit, vast numbers of poor cannot come up
8a. On the Rhine, see #2. So what happened to the employees and owner/investors of the company that was putting its waste in the Rhine? What happened to the expenses of people who bought the products made by the company? Likely they had to turn to a more expensive option. Of course that does not seem so bad, until one grasps that those little increases in cost add up. As they add up disposable income decreases and fewer purchases are made, affecting thousands of lives and businesses, until the entire economy is affected. This is already happening because of environmentalism, and because of the general statist interferences socialist governments impose. Measures of the rate of technological advancement show that human progress is already severely hampered by these kinds of interference.
8b. As a biologist (yes!!) I it is likely they put in more than a thousand salmon fingerlings, if they are serious about a salmon fishery in the Rhine. However, why should tax payers pay for putting fish into a river so a few people can fish for them. The fishermen should be doing it, or should find another business.
No man has a Right to take away the Rights of another, whether acting alone, in a political pressure group or as a politician. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. To live, Men must use the environment. Curtail that Right (to property and liberty) and you curtail his life, always. Environmentalism is not about a group buying a plot of land because they like it, or like the organisms on it. It is about curtailing human life. It is immoral/evil.
thank you Richard for your feedback, now this is somewhat funny, anyway,thank you again.
well i would just want to say,again, “let the readers choose what they want to believe” it’s good that they have one another post to consider. oh did i ever as much as say, that i think Mr RnBram [and you , now of course] are wrong in the way they think? i will not say i am not trying to convince people that green is nice, but i will at least say ,that i do not think that those who have different views then me can not say it or think they are true and i am not. don’t be down right rude,
“a sign of petulant irrationality” come on!as you may be able to see if you try to see my posts partially , i am open to all the things you two have to say,and i did also say,not all environmentalist are good.but tell me which is the field in
which every one is “so nice and true” to their work.
right , i am an advocate,just an advocate not the judge,i say again, my posts were just intended for the benefit of those who come to read this rather interesting exchange,it didn’t seem right that they get all influenced up by Mr RnBram’s rather powerful comment,i had to put what i think it right.they are the judges. you are the advocate of the different opinion are you not my friend? oh not an advocate , a biologist.
for your information the company was not closed,just fined ones and then it took up the measures to not to pollute the waters.
“No man has a Right to take away the Rights of another” can’t agree more, you have so much concern for the people who worked for the company and not the fisher men? they can also take up another jobs etc just as the fisher men can you know.this is all vise versa and you know that too.
“Only humans have rights” and “but no other organism has a right to anything.” wow what views. let me help, are you,by any chance,trying to show “the survival of the fittest” law on my face .doesn’t every being have the right to survive? till they can in their respective surroundings, now may be you’ll say they are not “fit enough” to survive because humans are the fittest.i don’t think i need to remind you that all the creatures are a link of the food chain,you are the one who knows the most about it right, humans can survive without them?
there is enough energy,sun,wind and yes i am not against nuclear,till it’s used safely.it’s rather a very nice alternative. i don’t remember when the environmentalists opposed the wind power anyway now i refrain from making an impression of a quarrelsome person on here anymore,if any of you want to continue this discussion [which i doubt ,is there any thing much left to say?accusing each other is silly actually,we all have made out points quite clear]you may mail me on divamuni@gmail.com, they might as well delete this post,if it’s against their rules to put the contact information.i am not feeling defeated in this argument,it just became rather irksome.
Diva, you were the first to use rudeness by suggesting I was forcing my views on others, simply because I disagreed with you; and now you have just continued it rather than sticking to your logical argument.
Speaking generally, not personally, it is one thing to keep an open mind, and quite another to allow that mind to accept falsehoods. However, one can accept a falsehood in error, but on encountering a clear contradiction an honest mind snaps to attention. It will then consider the new line of information and the line of reasoning it necessitates. If that new reasoning casts doubt on the previous one, one must, at the very least, choose a ‘holding pattern’ to continue asking questions. If the new line of reasoning cancels out the old, then the old must be discarded. Failure to do so is dishonest. If one is going to go on discussing and making decisions based on the subject, then further learning is required until clarity is achieved. This may mean just examining more literature, but may eventually require actual scientific research.
There is ample reasoning and evidence behind the information I have provided. It can be found quite readily on the Internet (see below). Yet, the leading environmentalists avoid it, or disparage it by smearing insult rather than by scrupulous attention to fact and reason. Both are dishonest approaches as I have indicated in the previous paragraph.
The Rhine river pollution issue is a derivative problem arising from larger political matters that I have touched on, but to pursue further would turn this discussion into a dissertation on government and individual rights, expanding on my point #6. Animals can try to exist and within many species there are standard instinctive behaviors that allow them to co-exist with their own kind, but they have no *Right* to either. A Right arises only by human conceptual understanding of the requirements for life, and only a human can work with others under that concept. Animals simply cannot work with concepts; no tiger will respect your Right to life, let alone discuss it with you.
To consider “sustainable development” (an environmentalist falshood) one of the major points you have raised, go to this webpage and enter the search term “sustainable” (without the quotation marks). Then study the first three or four short articles it presents.
On animal rights, enter the search term “animal” and select titles dealing with rights, such as Dr. Ed Locke’s or Onkar Ghate.
That is once source, and yes the website is pro-capitalist. There are many other sources that I can list but doing so here would not be appropriate, though I will provide more on a specific topic if asked. I also strongly suggest you read “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, particularly the last three chapters, which are not very long.
Diva, you were the first to use rudeness by suggesting I was forcing my views on others, simply because I disagreed with you; and now you have just continued it rather than sticking to your logical argument.
Speaking generally, not personally, it is one thing to keep an open mind, and quite another to allow that mind to accept falsehoods. However, one can accept a falsehood in error, but on encountering a clear contradiction an honest mind snaps to attention. It will then consider the new line of information and the line of reasoning it necessitates. If that new reasoning casts doubt on the previous one, one must, at the very least, choose a ‘holding pattern’ to continue asking questions. If the new line of reasoning cancels out the old, then the old must be discarded. Failure to do so is dishonest. If one is going to go on discussing and making decisions based on the subject, then further learning is required until clarity is achieved. This may mean just examining more literature, but may eventually require actual scientific research.
There is ample reasoning and evidence behind the information I have provided. It can be found quite readily on the Internet (see below). Yet, the leading environmentalists avoid it, or disparage it by smearing insult rather than by scrupulous attention to fact and reason. Both are dishonest approaches as I have indicated in the previous paragraph.
The Rhine river pollution issue is a derivative problem arising from larger political matters that I have touched on, but to pursue further would turn this discussion into a dissertation on government and individual rights, expanding on my point #6. Animals can try to exist and within many species there are standard instinctive behaviors that allow them to co-exist with their own kind, but they have no *Right* to either. A Right arises only by human conceptual understanding of the requirements for life, and only a human can work with others under that concept. Animals simply cannot work with concepts; no tiger will respect your Right to life, let alone discuss it with you.
To consider “sustainable development” (an environmentalist falshood) one of the major points you have raised, go to this webpage and enter the search term “sustainable” (without the quotation marks). Then study the first three or four short articles it presents.
On animal rights, enter the search term “animal” and select titles dealing with rights, such as Dr. Ed Locke’s or Onkar Ghate.
That is once source, and yes the website is pro-capitalist. There are many other sources that I can list but doing so here would not be appropriate, though I will provide more on a specific topic if asked. I also strongly suggest you read “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, particularly the last three chapters, which are not very long.
WordPress seems to put up a “Whoops” error message when a comment is submitted, saying it was not accepted when it has been accepted!.
Is this something the blog host can correct?
BTW, Sai, in N. America forests have increased by 20% in the last 75 years!!! That is because of its (partial) capitalist economy, and has nothing to do with tree hugging environmentalists. In other parts of the world forest destruction is very much a function of improper understanding of politics, economics and individual property rights.