This is a pretty strong opinion: Increases in freshwater exports out of the California Delta, the operation of Shasta Dam and other inland habitat problems have not only led to the collapse of Central Valley salmon populations, but also threaten the southern resident killer whale population.But salmon is a cultivated species and can be bought in Kever Benjamin's fish market for 10 dollars a kilo, and the killer whale is a dangerous predator which we need like the cockroach and the malaria mosquito. Why these imaginary problems should force real people to have no drinking water? No, the salmon and the whale are doing nothing, it is evil people exerting control and power over other less fortunate people.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
California's Water Problems
Aquanomics Blog writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
No, the salmon and the whale are doing nothing, it is evil people exerting control and power over other less fortunate people.
Exactly. California does not have a water problem, it has a Democratic Party problem.
Besides, unlike Democratic politicians cockroaches actually serve a purpose, even if they are unwelcome.
Sigh. As a fan of yours, it pains me when I see you display traits that the antisemites describe negatively as "jewish". In this two paragraph blurb there is:
1) A conservative's lack of understanding of the ecological world. Wiping out malarial mosquitoes, for instance, just allowed more of the native millions to swoop down on the Gangetic Plain, chop down the remaining trees, plant more crops, and grow their millions even more, to the point where they're not only overflowing into the lands of the west, but knocking on the door of your own land as well.
2) The use of the word "evil", as if that manmade descriptor has any application at all to biological realities. There is a struggle for survival, that is all.
3) A belief that anthropocentrism is somehow beneficial in the long term.
Someday you will most likely be Mayor of Kever Benjamin, Secret Israeli Water Engineer. Do not let the voters of your daughters' generation know of your disdain for orcas, however, or your carefully laid plans for attaining political power will fall by the wayside.
I believe that all living creatures were created (or evolved) to the benefit of the human species, and we have full right to hunt them, to breed them, and of course to eat them (if they are fit for that). I dont think that the fact that we share the Earth they have equal right to survival as we do. My first book was How Man Became a Giant, and it described human struggle to became human and to put the nature to use for its benefit. I still believe in that stuff. In summary, the orcas should serve us and not we the orcas.
...it pains me when I see you display traits that the antisemites describe negatively as "jewish".
The belief that nature is a garden that we can exploit to our benefit, but must maintain goes back to Genesis. Believing that man should serve nature, with this service bordering on worship, is paganism. The Old Testament (the Jewish part) condemns the worship of trees, rocks, plants and all other created things and actually mandates death to all who engage in such practices. Since believing Christians are supposed to read their Bibles, J's position isn't strictly Jewish, but should be shared by all men who believe in God.
The comments of "Anonymous" (no relation) are revealing. Not wrong, but revealing.
Paradoxically, Anonymous seems to suggest that the "liberal"-ecologist hegemony that now rules the world actually places some value on the harsh Malthusian realities that actually control human populations bordering on environmentally sensitive areas. This is a position that is not very friendly to the downtrodden, and not really liberal.
On the conservative side there are also paradoxes; some conservatives actually want to conserve nature, and to limit human populations, whereas others wish to always and everywhere priorise human life above anything else.
Personally I cannot imagine life without nature, and lots of it; the greatest moral dilemma of this century will be how to limit unrestrained human population growth from destroying the natural beauty of the planet. But on the other hand, I also firmly believe there are too few people like us; and I am beyond caring that this is hypocritical. Sophisticated people can find the right balance but poor people on the edge cannot be expected to. We have an obligation to manage them properly, and humanely, but it will be tough. And the liberals and conservatives will each be badly split on this, as the burden starts to crush down on them.
But on the other hand, I also firmly believe there are too few people like us; and I am beyond caring that this is hypocritical.
Thank you.
Ronduck explains perfectly my view of Nature, which is the Biblical one. Worshiping nature is paganism, and is stupid. Mountains are transient if seen in geological terms, all living species are temporary and change all the time. The latest concept is that man itself is changing at a growing rate, and that the people of London of the Roman times is not the same as in the Middle Ages, and again, contemporary British are something else. The orca is a beautiful animal, but in evolutionary terms, is a relative of the cow (if I am not wrong) and only God know how it will look in another 100,000 years. It is not static and it would be stupid and futile to try to keep it so forever. Change is inevitable.
Yes, but appreciation of nature is not the same as worship. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Scientific understanding, in my case, actually enhances the appreciation. It is not the same a primitivism, and there is no magical thinking about it at all. And the fact it is transient just adds to the triste.
Furthermore, I also appreciate the achievements of civilisation, and they too are a thing of beauty.
But the untramelled squalor of a poverty stricken population explosion, with all its suffering and pointless misery, is not something that many people appreciate. This is the real danger.
Anon.
Anon said...
Yes, but appreciation of nature is not the same as worship.
Agreed, but the enviros don't want to appreciate nature, they want to give it priority over man, that was my point. If I have to choose between preserving a piece of nature and meeting the needs of man, I would choose man.
But the untramelled squalor of a poverty stricken population explosion, with all its suffering and pointless misery, is not something that many people appreciate. This is the real danger.
The same enviro-liberals want to import this squalor into the United States and Europe. I want the third worlders to live in their own countries, but in their countries I want them to be able to use their land instead of having do-gooders tell them that it is bad for the environment. I want to be able to use my land in my own country with the same freedom.
In regards to the third world invasion of the USA, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Wait til you get 'free' health care.
Anon.
In regards to the third world invasion of the USA, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Wait til you get 'free' health care.
Anon.
Illegals already get free health care. If an illegal is in labor or has a life threatening health condition then the hospital cannot legally turn them away. On top of that since the US-born children of illegals are US citizens then the children are eligible for free health care, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents are too.
I think Obama will try to import millions of Blacks as "refugees" to the US legally.
Lastly, the human wave pouring into the US is not an invasion since it is coming in by the explicit permission of our officials.
I do care about the orca, but the animal I would really like to protect is the mountain gorilla. Genetically it is close to humans, possibly our nearest relative. Its observation has supplied many behavioural cues regarding ourselves, like rape, gang murder, war, etc. But this beautiful animal is being hunted by the Africans to sell them as bushmeat and its hands as powerful sorcery. While CAlifornia's greens are focused in the orca, which is not in danger at all, the gorillas and chimps of AFrica are being hunted and eaten till extintion. My conclusion is that California's activists are not really interested in protecting nature, but in paralysing and screwing "the establishment", that is, the people who want to do something useful, like providing drinking water to the people. They are after power, and couldnt care less about the orca.
J, you are almost certainly right about the motivation of some North American environmentalists.
I know about the bushmeat trade, it is appalling and also dangerous, incidentally, since it is probably the source of the HIV epidemic. Now it has been suggested that one way to protect the Great Apes is to extend Human Rights legislation to them. How workable this will be in the Congo, etc, where millions of people are being killed all the time, is another question. But I think they need to be protected for scientific and aesthetic reasons. And it is quite urgent, as the Congo is being opened up by logging companies, thus increasing the opportunity and the demand for bushmeat.
I think eating bushmeat is reaslly a form of cannibalism. And it is being trafficked into North America and Europe.
Anon.
Look at this:
http://bushmeat.net/
Interesting discussion.
1) It's aGuanomics :)
2) "why these imaginary problems should force real people to have no drinking water?" is the wrong conclusion. The debate in CA (and elsewhere) is whether water should go to fish or farms. There ARE ideologues on both sides, each claiming moral superiority. Readers of my blog will know that I favor some middle ground, preferably negotiated in markets, not courts.
Cheers! David (Mr. Aguanomics :)
Hi David!
What is the middle ground in a dispute between fish and farmers?
How can the fish claim moral superiority? Fish are generally silent.
Anyway, I am for your market solution. Let auction off the water, lets hear the fish's offer.
Be well.
Hi David!
What is the middle ground in a dispute between fish and farmers?
How can the fish claim moral superiority? Fish are generally silent.
Anyway, I am for your market solution. Let auction off the water, lets hear the fish's offer.
Be well.
Post a Comment