.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Monday, May 07, 2007

Gloabal Sterilization Needed: Part One

Sea Shepherd founder says mankind is a 'virus' and we need to 're-wild the planet.'

By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute

Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion


  • Nothing speaks more directly to the Liberals low opinion of mankind as this sort of garbage.

    In fact, mankind is acting exactly as all species must do, exactly as nature is designed for them to do; succeeding and prospering to the greatest extent their capabilities allow.

    The danger of that is not to Mother Earth; it is to mankind. Mother Earth will survive whatever mankind does albeit in a necessarily altered form. To hail as sacrosanct the current form of Mother Earth or to hail as such whatever form Mother Earth may have taken or will take without mankind is just a silly, quilt ridden and irrelevant manmade judgment oddly and erroneously proffered on behalf of a neutral Mother Earth. The same could be said of any species that does or has ever existed. The only difference between us and other species is that mankind uniquely now understands the ecological consequences of his actions.

    That begs the question, ‘what, then, should mankind do with that knowledge?’. Liberals suggest that mankind should, consequently, abandon the prime directives of survival and prosperity by which all earths creature operate and which has gotten us to this point in evolution in order to limit his ecological impact on the current state of nature. That, it seems to me, would be to abdicate our responsibility to nature, not to exercise it. The Conservative view, or at least the view of this Conservative, is that mankind should then be careful and cognizant of his impact on the ecology least he limit his chances of continued success and prosperity.

    To be sure that includes promoting the survival and prosperity of the many other species upon which that of mankind depend. It even includes reserving certain areas free of manmade impact, what the Liberal Environmentalists call ‘pristine’, but only because such areas fulfill a need in mankind’s continued will to succeed and prosper, not because it matters to Mother Earth. Ultimately, there is a finite number of people that the earth can be managed to sustain and that is a challenge we all must someday face or we, not Mother Earth, will perish.

    This is far more than a philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives. It has very real practical consequences. Liberals, in their quest to save the environment from mankind need never consider the cost to mankind of their actions. For Conservatives, who would seek to save the environment for mankind, that cost is an integral part of the whole point.

    By Anonymous Anotmo, at 3:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home