When evaluating the demands of the environmentalist movement, it is essential to consider its ultimate goals. In this case, no inference is necessary. The leaders of the environmentalist movement have stated directly what they want.
Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."
David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."
Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?" Maurice Strong, Chairman of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
"We reject the idea of private property." Peter Berle, President, National Audubon Society.
Free enterprise really means rich people getting richer.they have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…Capitalism is destroying the earth." Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Pet ownership is slavery. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or be entertained by." Ingrid Newkirk, Founder of People for the ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).
"The only really good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation levied by an elitist species upon the rest of the natural world." Friends of the Earth.
"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing…This is not to say that the rise in human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that is will be much of a help to the world in the long run." Editorial in the ‘Economist.’
"If you give the idea a chance, you might agree that the extinction of homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions of other earth-dwelling species." Wild Earth Magazine
"Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance." Richard Conniff, Audubon Magazine
Sources here and here.
Will any liberals either defend or repudiate these statements?
Allan, we've been over this before. Are you trying to imply that all environmentalists are part of these fringe groups, taken wildly out of context, you keep finding in the depths of the internet? If you really think that’s what we want, then I invite you to the next meeting of the SSE, then you can meet some real on campus environmentalists and ask them what they think. It shouldn’t be hard for you to find us, we meet in the same room the CR’s do. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised when you realize we are not plotting the destruction of the human race.
The environmental movement is about the lives of our children. People who care about the earth do so because they care about other people. We want our planet to be able to sustain future generations the way it has sustained us. We want to protect our natural resources so other people can still have them years from now.
What do you think they meant by these comments? The problem is that the rank and file individual that truly cares about the environment has been taken in by the Environment Movement into thinking that there are those that are seeking the destruction of the environment. Everyone cares about the environment. To say that someone wants to destroy the environment is ridiculous. With the possible exception of those that want the extinction of the human race. The Environmental Movement is working to make vast areas of land off limits for human use, even if that use is for asthetic purposes only.
The Environmental Movement paints a picture to get people involved under the guise that there are evil people that are trying to destroy nature and the entire natural environment when in reality, they have alterior motives. And these motives can be understood by what these statements from the Environmental Movement leadership.
Waiting on you to disavow your former comments about liberals Allan. You can shuck and jive all you want but you won't get away. Stop asking people ridiculous questions about whether they want to see humanity wiped off the map. Face yourself and then come back to us! I don't suppose you have the guts to do that though.
You want a liberal to speak up about these statements, I’m not, but holy cow you guys here at the WMU Republicans are so far out there. I feel I should say something because I am closer to Earth than your make-believe. First, take an environmental science class if your going to be talking about the environment with such frequency; it’s a 100 level class so you might be able to pass it. Also, stop simply trusting what you read as fact. Look into the article, read about the topics, educate yourself. More than likely these quotes are taken out of context. While I appreciate you citing these articles, where are the author’s citations?
These individuals are talking about logistic growth. As a species we are growing to fast for our ecosystem, we need to slow down, now! If we don’t, we will be like bacteria in a petri dish. We will overshoot the carrying capacity of our planet. I agree that this number is debatable, technology keeps improving to push this number, but at some point it will be in our face. Take deer population in Michigan for example; a subject that hits close to home with the right: gun ownership, hunting, and so on. We have killed almost all the predators of deer, now we have a hunting season, we have limits on the number of deer we can kill each season, and that number fluctuates. We have taken over as their predators with our cars and guns. If we don’t kill them, many of them will starve in the winter, encroach on our land, or they will kill each other for food. If we kill to many, there won’t be any deer left to kill. This is nature, population studies. Look at us killing over a resource in Iraq. Next will be wars fought for supplies of fresh water? We are already doing what many of these quotes are suggesting.
We are a species on this planet just like deer, locust, elm, and mosquitoes. Humble yourself for a second. I know this is corny but we need to live in harmony with the other species on our planet, or they will start hunting us down like deer. No, I don’t see mosquitoes organizing like the NRA, but like the article discusses, they are carrying the stuff that could kill us. Ok, so we use DDT. Where do we get the flu vaccine from? We get it from the fertilized eggs of chickens, a bird. DDT breaks down the shells of bird eggs; so, when we poison one species it effects another, and so on, and so on. We need to look at ourselves with respect to the rest of the planet. Who knows what species out there may carry a cure for the next virus to come along. Who knows if that species is not extinct already?
Anyway, like Jacques-Yves Cousteau said “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized.” Notice how he uses, “terrible.” He doesn’t like to have to say what he said, like all those quoted. They are just trying to get a point across. If we don’t take an active role in this, nature will take care of it for us. Who knows, technology may keep up with population, but we need people to talk about these issues and condescending them for an opinion does not help. You need your neo-conservatives to state their opinions. I applaud you for bringing this article to peoples attention but do you have an opinion? So far all I have found with the postings here are reiterations of other peoples articles, far right articles, as they also seem to be. How about posting a thought of your own, backed by these articles you read?
I have only been a student at Western for a little over two months and I consider myself to be middle-conservative. So far, man, you guys are nuts, and you’re in school? Westerns enrollment must really be down. Please, I beg of you, stop contributing to the conservative party’s fracturing. The big guys are doing a good enough job on their own.
The anonymous above makes a very good point. Allan, you seem to be very, very interested in the environment. You've created several posts on the subject in the last few weeks which must have taken hours to make, so you're clearly committed to this subject. Perhaps you should take at least one class on environmental science to understand the environmental movement better.
You seem to have some very strange ideas about us. My invitation to the next SSE meeting (Students for a Sustainable Earth) is still open.
Will any liberals either defend or repudiate these statements?
Will you ever defend or repudiate Ann Coulter calling John Edwards "a faggot"? For some one who claims to be against “ad Hominem” attacks, you are pretty reluctant to take a stand on that. I’ve asked you about it on other parts of this blog, but you always fail to respond.
Clearly the statements you managed to find above are all taken wildly out of context or represent fringe groups which I've never heard of.
I've already explained the true motivations of the Environmental Movement:
"The environmental movement is about the lives of our children. People who care about the earth do so because they care about other people. We want our planet to be able to sustain future generations the way it has sustained us. We want to protect our natural resources so other people can still have them years from now."
Clearly the statements above do not represent the views of the environmental movement at all. So obviously I repudiate them, at least the way you have them framed.
Now, have the courage to actually LEARN about these issues! You seem to have a deep hatred of environmentalists that is honestly kind of scary. Where does all this anger within you come from?
I will defend Ann Coulter: her quote was taken out of context, just like all the environmental quotes Allan posted. See? Now, she didn't mean it after all. It's like magic.
BTW, Allan, under no circumstances take any classes posters have suggested here. It's a trap! :)
Wow some one defending Ann Coulter!
You say it was taken out of context? Well educate us all, how did we misunderstand her?
What was it about "faggot" to not understand? Perhaps she meant "faggot" in a kind and thoughtful way?
Post a Comment