Letters to the Editor
-
Come now...
Your argument works the same way...is there a situation where it could happen that a property owner owns SO MUCH LAND that the decision to develop it into something would eradicate a species? Yes? Ok, well then property rights have no influence on protecting the environment.
First, the primary persons that complain about "takings" and the evil guv'mnt stealin' my land for a bird are the very people who support Paul with his private property rights (artificial, by the way). They have some land that they want to "develop" (ie, destroy by producing a condominium spread, housing development, or golf-friggin-course) but because an endangered species lives on it, they are blocked. Only those who ALREADY are upset because they cannot help wipe out entire species are behind the private property above ecological survival.
Second, it doesn't matter whether this or that individual has enough land to totally wipe out a species if they develop their particular property. It doesn't work like that anymore than humans work like that. Individuals, collectively, would "develop" their land for a quick buck without considering (or caring) about the consequences such that it adds up to HUGE tracts of land that DO endanger whole species.
As for your previous argument about extinction being "natural"...not so fast. There is a critical difference between, say, dinosaurs dying out because of some largescale and totally uncontrolled environmental event and a species, or host of species, going extinct due to direct human activity. See, humans have this capacity to understand what they are doing, see the consequences of what they are doing, choose to do something entirely different or modify what they are doing so that species do NOT have to go extinct. Critical difference and not really "natural" at all...unless you are also going to shrug your shoulders and state that humans wiping themselves out due to nuclear war or human-caused ecological disaster is "natural" on the same basis as the dinosaurs going bye-bye.
Don't speak to me of natural processes here. I am a biologist in the real world. I fully understand the difference between a natural extinction and a libertarian's (or Fundie Xtian's) idea of "natural". One is totally mindless and beyond anyone's control, the other is FULLY and CONSCIOUSLY under OUR control...and totally unnecessary, not to say stupid and short-sighted.
You cannot look at each species as an independent and disconnected entity all its own. It is part of a system. You knock out one part of the system and there are secondary, tertiary, etc, effects that you cannot necessarily predict. You carelessly wipe out species X thinking, "So what? It's just a stupid bird," only to find that you have totally unbalanced the rest of the system in ways you wont like at all...and that leads to further extinctions. Carelessly wipe out a keystone species and you may well be royally screwed. Or, keep wiping out what you consider minor species of no importance and the effects can be much worse than simply additive. In short, short-sighted, greed-based, short-term-profit-for-me, private-property "development" without regulation can lead to disaster for ALL of us. That's beyond the simple moral argument against wiping out something that had as much right to exist as anything or anyone else...as the saying goes, extinction is forever. Simply trusting to individuals to act intelligently and reasonably is a nonstarter. That led to the man-caused wipeout of Dodo birds, mastadons, on and on and on and on.
People can alter their behavior and NOT do things. Nature itself just rolls on. There's a difference.
-
Oh I don't know Sinnard...
I mean, why would AMERICANS do something silly like think that PROPERTY RIGHTS are one of the most important things to be considered during any argument?
Maybe because it was so friggin' easy to take it from the people that were already here and using the land? Why NOT expropriate it from a people MUCH more in tune with their natural surroundings such that they didn't claim any piece of land as their's to do with as they saw fit? They didn't have muskets so kick their asses off the land and use it to make a buck and screw any and every other consideration.
-
@ tempus
Are you and Timberman the same person? And FYI, I find the Gaia hypothesis to be extremely persausive (not being sarcastic there, though I am a bit below).
Anyway, you are just as good at attacking straw men as he. Congratulations on being a biologist "in the real world." What are you here, a pontificating, self assured asshole? I suppose you believe that without your biology degree(s), you wouldn't be able to understand the difference between natural vs. human caused extinctions. Since my only degrees are in philosophy, I clearly cannot understand that there's a difference. Thanks for helping me realize that. Really, I owe you. I'm going to go throw out my "fuck the spotted owl, I want wood furniture" t-shirt right now and become an elitist liberal who can't see past his own self-esteem issues to engage in a rational discussion of ideas right this minute.
I was not addressing human caused extinctions in my post to Cassia. I was simply making a statement of fact that it is impossible to prevent endangered species from becoming extinct insofar as we are NOT the cause. When we are the cause, anyone can see that a change in our practices is needed and can remedy the situation. When we're not the cause of an extinction, is it even desirable to prevent it? Further I did not say extinction is always natural, as you seem to have read, but you were more than happy to run with your false perception and get your self-righteous guns off.
As Glenn has lamented in his updates, you people are applying arguments and positions to me that I have not advocated. It is clear that tempus, bella, and timberman are incapable of comprehending what I'm saying. Not because they lack the intelligence, but because they don't want to be wrong and they're more eager to score points for their "team" than to actually engage in a discussion of ideas. Clearly you perceive me as not being on your team.
Yes, your team is the only one that acknowledges the interconnectivity of life on this planet. I guess if I'm not on your team, I can't agree on that point, can I?
You are so dogmatic in your assertions that people are just going to run willy-nilly and screw everyone else over, including the environment, as though property development is always profitable. Ever consider that there are ways to develop property in a way that benefits both humans and non-humans alike?
You are f'n clueless, sir. Sorry, but I had to say it. You cite profitability as the motivating factor behind the evil that property development causes while neglecting the rest of the market forces that would govern such profitability.
I guess the difference between us is that I'm a humanist.
Cheers.