Wednesday, December 23, 2009 |
 |
Al Gore's Merger of Environmentalism and Religion |
 |
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM   
Yet more global warming alarmists are linking environmentalism with religion. Here are a couple of recent discussions of this topic.
The first comes from Thaddeus Russell, someone who is concerned about AGW but dislikes the religiousity.
Here is an excerpt from his 12/19/2009 piece, "Blame the Smug Climate Warriors":...Many climate-change deniers and even some who accept global warming as a fact, like the authors of Superfreakonomics, have attacked what they call the "religion of climate change." Al Gore is often singled out for raising the discourse on the issue to a supernatural level, thus taking it out of the realm of human questioning.
Though Gore's books, speeches, and Oscar-winning film on the issue are chock full of secular scientific information, they are also laced with biblical references. And Gore himself has said that climate change is "ultimately a moral and spiritual issue."
Gore recently told Newsweek that since the publication of An Inconvenient Truth, he has trained Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu clergy to spread his message.
He admitted that he uses a version of the "Inconvenient Truth" slide show that is "filled with scriptural references." Moreover, "It's probably my favorite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing." The Gore interview with Newsweek can be found in the 11/19/2009 story by Sharon Begley "The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet". Here are a couple of excerpts:Asked how he reconciles that realization with the wonkish content of the book, Gore at first seems stymied. But then, when I prompt him, he points to pages on the spiritual dimension of climate change, the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, and that preserving it for future generations is a sacred obligation. Then he opens his laptop to show a commercial by his Alliance for Climate Protection, in which the Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson make an odd-couple plea for "taking care of the planet."
Gore allows that he's been tailoring the slide-show training he gives to faith-based volunteer groups. "I've done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It's probably my favorite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing." In the Newsweek interview, Gore cites reason and the Enlightenment (!) as two of his major influences:So, if efficiency is so great and saves so much money (leave aside the CO2 part), I ask, why don't businesses do it? "You know, I was raised in an Enlightenment-influenced family," Gore says. "Both my parents were such believers in the preeminence of reason, and I still believe all that." Al Gore is as much a defender of the Enlightment as President Obama is a defender of capitalism.Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
| | |  E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink ( )  Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts  via Feed Reader  via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts  M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, December 21, 2009 |
|
The Impartialist Ethics of Deep Ecology |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
FAIL Blog recently posted this remarkably honest card from The Green Game (via Kevin Delaney):
In case you can't read that easily, it says:
Question: Which is greener; being obese and out of shape or slim and healthy?
Answer: Although obese people do consume slightly more energy than slim people, they will not live as long and therefore, will consume less of the earth's resources. Most people would likely think that's some kind of horrible mistake: "Surely, they can't mean that!" Yet in fact, the card perfectly represents the ideological core of the environmentalist movement, often referred to as "deep ecology."
As I've argued before, most self-described environmentalists are motivated by fundamentally human concerns: they want clean air and clean water; they want "open space" for hiking, camping, and other sports; they want to preserve species for future study and enjoyment. Such people often wrongly suppose that government controls are required to achieve these ends. They are often mistaken about the benefits and dangers of certain products or practices. They err in thinking in terms of intrinsic value of nature. Yet fundamentally, their aims are anthropocentric: they wish to protect and improve human life.
Undoubtedly, the creators of that game are environmentalists of a different sort: they are "deep ecologists." Here's the description of deep ecology from Wikipedia (with my emphasis added):
Deep ecology's core principle is the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely anthropocentric environmentalism, which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for humans purposes, which excludes the fundamental philosophy of deep ecology. Deep ecology seeks a more holistic view of the world we live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole. Notice that, in addition to its metaphysical collectivism, deep ecology specifically rejects anthropocentrism, i.e. man-centered environmentalism. Ultimately, that's why it promotes human suffering and death as a positive good. To understand the why and the how, we need to draw some parallels to altruism -- particularly to utilitarianism and impartialism.
The moral perspective of deep ecology is similar to that of utilitarianism -- or, more broadly, impartialism. Utilitarianism demands that we always act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is hedonistic: happiness is understood to be nothing more than pleasure, whether physical or emotional. Today, the widely-accepted variant of utilitarianism is the non-hedonistic doctrine of impartialism.
Impartialism abstracts away from the hedonism of utilitarianism: it is neutral about the nature of the good. Impartialism speaks in terms of "interests," yet that can mean just about anything: pleasure, wealth, happiness, health -- or even obedience to duty or submission to God's will. However, impartialism is still decidedly collectivistic: the good is neutral between persons. So whatever the standard for the good is, we must promote that good for everyone, not merely ourselves. We must be impartial in our decisions: we ought not concern ourselves with whether something is good for me or my loved ones -- or good for a stranger and his loved ones. All that matters is that something is good. (Kant's ethics of duty shares the same detached view of the good: that's why I think of impartialism as the distilled essence of both utilitarianism and deontology.)
Technically, impartialism permits each person to consider his own interests when acting. Yet the desires, goals, and welfare of one person must always be deemed inconsequential in comparison to the interests of the other billions of people in the world.
For example, you might think that your choice to buy a latte is your own private business, perhaps just concerning you and the owner of the coffee shop. You aren't harming anyone by buying the coffee. In fact, you and the coffee shop owner are better off after the transaction. Sounds good, right? No! That's far too narrow a perspective for impartialism: you must consider the impact of that transaction on everyone else, including the billions of total strangers in the world. Impartialism demands that you consider everything else that you might have done with those few dollars. Clearly, you could be feeding the poor, rather than indulging your desire for luxury. You have no moral right to a cup of coffee while someone in the world lacks bread. (For that argument, see Peter Singer's classic essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality.)
The fact that the needs of the one are always swamped by the needs of the many is why impartialism is properly regarded as a form of altruism. In practice, you must always do for others, never for yourself. Unless you are the worst-off person in the world, you have no moral right to your own life or happiness.
That sounds awful, but it gets even worse.
(I'll speak of altruism from here on, as the rest of my analysis is not specific to impartialism.)
Impartialism and other forms of altruism cannot rejoice in the fact that people's interests are often in harmony. That only creates epistemic problems when attempting to judge people morally. How so?
Sometimes, a person might act for the sake of his own interests, yet by so doing, he happens to benefit others. In such cases, the person deserves no moral praise or credit -- even when the benefits provided to others are tremendous, like when neurosurgeon saves the live of a beloved child. Such a person is motivated by his own selfish concerns -- perhaps by the expected payment for the surgery or even his enjoyment of the work -- not purely by selfless concern for others.
Thus, when a person benefits from his actions in some way, we must wonder about his motives. He might be a secret egoist! As Kant observes in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, even the person himself might be deluded, thinking that he was motivated by duty when instead he was motivated by self-love. The result? A person can only be safely praised by altruistic standards when he receives no benefit whatsoever from his actions -- and better yet, when he suffers deeply for them. Only in such cases -- when the person clearly and deliberately inflicts harm on himself for the benefit of others -- can he be judged moral by altruistic standards.
Moreover, the person praiseworthy by altruistic standards need not really benefit other people much, if at all. A person's noble plans might go awry for all kinds of reasons beyond his control. Or perhaps a person lacks the resources or power to accomplish much. The critical question is whether the person decided on his course of action using the proper impartial or altruistic principle -- or "maxim," to use Kant's term. That's all that this morality demands.
So what does that mean? Altruism demands that people help others, yet shrinks from measuring moral worth by that standard. Instead, a person's moral worth is determined by his private motives or maxims: he must act for the sake of others, not for his own sake. He clearly demonstrates that only by his choice to suffer for others. Thus, self-inflicted suffering is the measure of a person's moral worth according to altruism.
Sadly, that's not some far-fetched, stretched interpretation of the meaning of altruism. It's exactly what the most consistent altruists have preached as the good throughout history -- Kant most explicitly.
Recall that the highest moral ideal of Christianity is that of Jesus, a god who willingly allowed himself to be brutally murdered for the sake of sinners. Jesus didn't die in a fight against injustice -- as might the leader of a slave rebellion. He didn't die in defense of anything of personal value to him -- like a friend, lover, or child. He died for the sake of all humanity, wicked and sinful as we are. He died for the sake of the very people who rejected him.
Moreover, that mythology of Jesus' death was based on the same altruistic principles he preached during his life, most clearly exemplified by the story of the Widow's Mite.
[Jesus] sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on." Notice that the widow is not morally superior to those who donated large sums because she provided a greater benefit to the poor. She didn't. Instead, she's morally superior because she sacrificed more. She will suffer greatly for her donation, as now she has nothing to live on. That's what makes her virtuous: her deliberate suffering.
So what does all of that have to do with deep ecology? What does it have to do with the suggestion that we die sooner for the sake of the environment?
Deep ecology is deep impartialism: the interests of everything in the natural world must be considered on a par with human interests. After all, why should mankind be so selfish as to only consider its own interests? Shouldn't we consider the interests of cows, moles, robins, turtles, worms, maples, lichen, and amoebas too? And more: even rivers and rocks have interests that we ought to consider, as well as the planet as a whole! For deep ecology, any form of anthropocentrism -- including traditional utilitarianism -- is really just another form of selfish egoism.
In practice, just as the interests of one person are totally swamped by the interests of billions of other people in human-focused impartialism, so human interests are totally swamped by the interests of living organisms, ecosystems, and natural objects in deep ecology. Consequently, humans will always be obliged to sacrifice themselves for nature. Just by sheer numbers, we're always going to lose.
As with altruism, the test of moral virtue for deep ecology is not any benefit done to the natural world but rather the depth of human sacrifices. Otherwise, we might just be pretending concern for nature, while actually secretly pursuing our own selfish ends. We can only prove our morality by eschewing anything that might benefit ourselves. That's why the morality of deep ecology demands human destruction.
These various moral theories -- utilitarianism, impartialism, altruism, and deep ecology -- are similar for a reason. The morality of egoism is the morality of life and happiness. To reject egoism as immoral requires adopting suffering and death as the moral standard -- whether for a single individual or all of humanity. The form of that ideal differs, as does its window dressing. Yet if you dig a bit, you'll find suffering and death at its core.
Sometimes, as with the card from "The Green Game," that's just a bit more apparent than usual.Labels: Environmentalism, Ethics, Philosophy
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, December 17, 2009 |
|
Religious Environmentalism |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
If you're wondering about the state of the nascent merger of religion and environmentalism, some useful data can be found in this USA Today article: "Religious Groups Active in Climate Debate." The article examines the emergence of explicitly religious arguments for environmentalist controls at the UN Summit in Copenhagen.
For example, consider the views of Tyler Edgar, the assistant director for the environmental arm of the National Council of Churches:
Edgar, who also is traveling to Copenhagen, sees things differently [than the religious global warming skeptics]. Broadly speaking, America's religious communities have shed their long-standing suspicion of the environmental cause "as that hippie, tree-hugging thing," she says. In the past three years or so, many have rallied behind the belief that "we are all called upon to protect God's creation and God's people" by acting to stop climate change, Edgar says. Indeed, that's the doctrine what's known as "creation care" or "stewardship." As the web site of Creation Care for Pastors explains:
This site is to serve pastors who are interested in a growing emphasis within the Christian community called "Creation Care": applying biblical principles of stewardship to the environment we share with all living things. We like the word "creation" even better than the word "environment" because it includes all that makes the earth a wonderful place, and it reminds us it's all a gift, a sacred trust from the hands of the Creator.
From a biblical perspective, "the environment" is God's creation. Creation care does not just mean caring for "nature," apart from humanity. It means caring for the entire creation: the environment and "all creatures great and small" including humanity. As those who confess Jesus Christ to be Savior and Lord, our relationship with all of creation must be in keeping with Christ's relationship with all of creation. When we explore what the Bible says about creation, we interpret each text in light of our relationship to Christ and his relationship to all of creation. If the Bible teaches us that Christ has created the universe, gives it life and sustains it, and has reconciled everything to God, then our actions should participate in Christ's creating, sustaining, and reconciling work. Here's another telling example from the USA Today article:
[Jim Ball, head of the Evangelical Environmental Network], who arrives in Copenhagen on Friday, says he plans to spend most of his time "hanging out in the hallways" of the Bella Center conference hall, where international delegates will be negotiating a deal. He'll be looking to speak with senior Obama administration officials and members of Congress.
Ball's pet cause is a proposal for rich countries, including the USA, to send poorer countries money -- at least $10 billion a year will be needed, the U.N.'s Ban says. The funds would help the countries overhaul their economies to pollute less, and cope with possible consequences of climate change such as lower agricultural yields, or rising seas that could devastate island nations.
"Our role is to remind (politicians) that this is a profound moral issue, and that the basic moral teachings of religion apply to these environmental problems," Ball says. Particularly in light of the scientific scandal of ClimateGate, I believe that religion will bolster environmentalism with the faith-based moral fervor that it needs to survive -- just as faith-based altruism has kept socialism alive and kicking after the supposed science of central planning was demolished with the economic collapse of the Soviet empire.Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, December 07, 2009 |
|
Hsieh LTE in WSJ on Climate Change |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
The December 7, 2009 Wall Street Journal printed my LTE in support of Dr. Richard Lindzen's December 1 OpEd, "The Climate Science Isn't Settled".
My LTE is on the page entitled, "The Science Behind the IPCC Climate Report Is Sound" (4th of 5):If a respected MIT scientist like Mr. Lindzen argues that "the science isn't settled," and other scientists disagree, then doesn't the very dispute itself prove that the science isn't settled?
Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo. (The title applies to the first letter on the page, not to mine.)
This is also my new record for LTE brevity -- 30 words!Labels: Activism, Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, November 16, 2009 |
|
More Convergence Between Religion and Environmentalism |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
The November 5, 2009 Economist highlights further convergence between environmentalism and religion in their article, "Religion and climate change: Sounding the trumpet".
Here's an excerpt:...As environmentally minded clerics, and greens with a spiritual bent, confer in increasing numbers, in particular over climate change, acquaintances are being struck that transcend many ethnic, ideological and theological obstacles.
...[UN Secretary-General] Ban told an audience of gorgeously attired Bahais, Buddhists, Christians, Daoists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Shintos and Sikhs that "you are the leaders who can have the largest, widest and deepest reach" when warning people about climate change. Religions, he said, had established or helped to run half the schools in the world; they were among the world's biggest investors; and the global output of religious journalism was comparable at least to Europe's secular press. The Economist article observes that this trend seems to be further advanced outside of the US. But the US is probably not far behind.
Although religion and environmentalism may seem to be fairly disparate, Onkar Ghate spoke about this coming convergence at the 2008 OCON conference in Lecture 2 of the 3-part series, "Cultural Movements: Creating Change".
Here is an excerpt from my notes of his lecture:...Lately, the evangelicals have started to move away from a primary focus on issues such as abortion and sexual orientation/conduct, and towards a broader range of issues which includes "social justice" and environmentalism. Environmentalism and religion in particular have the potential to form a truly "unholy marriage", because in a crucial way they both need and complement the other.
The religionists have previously been concerned with issues in the spiritual realm, such as sex. Environmentalists have previously been concerned about issues in the material realm, such as industrial production. But a combination of the two gives each other strength, and feeds an ideology in which your very existence is a sin. This alliance grants a powerful moral foundation for environmentalist condemnations of mankind's physical activities and it also expands the domains by which religion can assert control over man's spirit through guilt. The video of his lecture can be found on the "ARC: Culture" web page, middle column, under the heading "Cultural Movements: Creating Change". Use the scroll bar on the embedded video to select between the three separate lectures.
(BTW, I highly recommend listening to all three lectures).Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 |
|
Green = Smart? |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:04 PM
Joseph Kellard recently sent me the following inquiry. I couldn't think of any examples offhand, so with his permission, I'm posting it here:
I'm looking to write about the environmentalists' use of the term "smart" to describe some of their policies: e.g., the anti-"sprawl" greens are pushing "smart growth" city planning, while other environmentalists tout wind, solar and their ugly new light bulbs as "smart energies."
Are you aware of any other uses of this term in environmentalist circles? (Yes, I know, there are other uses of "smart" today with no green connections, such as "smart phones").
Please post your replies in the comments -- or e-mail Joseph directly at theainet1@optonline.net.Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Saturday, March 28, 2009 |
|
The Meaning of an Hour in the Dark |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
Here's an excellent letter by OActivist Roberto Sarrionandia published in the UK's Daily Telegraph from on tonight's "Earth Hour":
Turning the lights out is an attack on civilisation
SIR -- This Saturday evening, for "Earth Hour", we are encouraged to turn off our lights as a symbolic sacrifice for nature.
This is a terrifying concept. The electric light has brought safety to our streets, and enabled us to work and enjoy ourselves long into the night. It is, in many ways, the symbol of civilisation.
One hour in the dark may be enjoyable if it is temporary, but existence without electricity would bring death en masse.
When we declare our opposition to the electric light bulb, we declare our opposition to man.
Roberto Sarrionandia
Saundersfoot, Pembrokeshire For more from Roberto Sarrionandia, see his blog, Tito Says. For more on "Earth Hour," see Keith Lockitch's op-ed on its real meaning.
Most of all, don't forget to leave on your lights in honor of Edison Hour tonight!Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
|
Edison Hour |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:53 PM
Tomorrow evening, Paul and I will celebrate Edison Hour. Amy Nasir explains this festival of lights on the New Clarion:
On Saturday, March 28, from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m., in contrast to the dubious "Earth Hour," there are a couple of new movements celebrating the achievements of Thomas Edison and those men and women who--as Ayn Rand eloquently phrased--"took first steps, down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision."
In honor of Edison Hour, which was coincidentally established by the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism and myself, and also in tribute to Human Achievement Hour, households and businesses across the nation will be keeping their lights and other electrical devices on, and refusing to concede the unearned guilt that environmentalists want to establish in our culture.
We live in the most innovative, life-sustaining and "money-making" country in mankind's history, and we should never apologize for human happiness and success. So please remember to keep your lights on this coming Saturday. You may want to spend the hour by sitting down by the bright light of your lamp reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or revisiting her uplifting novella, Anthem, from which I've selected a quote from its main character who rediscovered electricity and the light bulb:
I have learned that my power of the sky was known to men long ago; they called it Electricity. It was the power that moved their greatest inventions. It lit this house with light which came from those globes of glass on the walls. Let's make sure that the precious inventions that freed the world from darkness are never taken for granted, and especially not destroyed by the anti-man philosophy of environmentalism and "Earth Hour." Let's change the tide of the culture by celebrating human achievement and literally fending off the darkness. Hear, hear!
P.S. Ari Armstrong has a good post on Edison Hour too.Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 |
|
Give Back, Schmive Schmack |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:20 AM
Here's an interesting even if year-old tidbit, sent to me by William Stoddard. A list of words that ought to be banished in 2008 includes the following:
GIVE BACK – "This oleaginous phrase is an emergency submission to the 2008 list. The notion has arisen that as one's life progresses, one accumulates a sort of deficit balance with society which must be neutralized by charitable works or financial outlays. Are one's daily transactions throughout life a form of theft?" – Richard Ong, Carthage, Missouri.
"Various media have been featuring a large number of people who 'just want to give back.' Give back to whom? For what?" – Curtis Cooper, Hazel Park, Michigan. The suggestions for 2009 are have already been posted. They include this gem:
CARBON FOOTPRINT or CARBON OFFSETTING – "It is now considered fashionable for everyone, tree hugger or lumberjack alike, to pay money to questionable companies to 'offset' their own 'carbon footprint.' What a scam! Get rid of it immediately!" Ginger Hunt, London, England.
Mike of Chicago says that when he hears the phrase 'carbon footprint,' "I envision microscopic impressions on the surface of the earth where an atom of carbon forgot to wear its shoes."
Christy Loop of Woodbridge, Va., says that 'leaving a carbon footprint' has become the new 'politically incorrect.' "How can we not, in one way or another, affect our natural environment?" Exactly!Labels: Environmentalism, Ethics, Language
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 |
|
LTE About Obama's Choice for Advisor on Science & Technology |
|
By Gina Liggett @ 12:03 AM
My following LTE was published in the Rocky Mountain News on January 6th. I responded to the Rocky's fairly good Editorial concerning Obama's pick of a humanity-causes-global-warming alarmist to head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Dear Editor(s),
I agree with the Rocky's Dec. 27 editorial "The limits of science/Does Obama advisor respect them?" about President-elect Obama's choice of Stephen Holdren to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. But I might suggest a different title: "The limits of politics." Because that's what Obama's all about.
Besides lack of any executive experience, he has never actually created wealth in our economy, but only spent someone else's. And now Obama has selected greenhouse-gas alarmist Holdren who joins the chorus of politicos in blaming global warming on industrialization, and who advocates severe strangulations on our economy as the answer.
Unlike Holdren, there are many scientists who attribute global warming primarily to the formidible forces of nature that have caused drastic climate change in Earth's past. There is a great deal of scientific debate that has become squashed because of politics.
But despite Obama's hot air about "free and open inquiry," it's clear by his choice of Holdren that he doesn't care about facts, science or economics, but the world he knows best--politics.
Gina Liggett, DenverLabels: Activism, Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Gina Liggett PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, January 09, 2009 |
|
Vatican Cites Environmentalist Objections to the Pill |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:03 AM
Reposted from Politics without God, as yet another indication of the coming merger of religion and environmentalism:
Another news item of interest from the iFeminists news feed:
Vatican newspaper slams 'the pill'
January 4, 2009
The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said on Saturday.
The pill "has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature" through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report. "We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill," he said, without elaborating further. "We are faced with a clear anti-environmental effect which demands more explanation on the part of the manufacturers," added Castellvi.
The article was promptly dismissed by several organisations. "Once metabolised, the hormones contained in oral contraceptives no longer have any of the characteristic effects of feminine hormones," said Gianbenedetto Melis, vice-president of a contraceptive research association, quoted by the ANSA news agency. The hormones contained in the pill such as oestrogen "are present everywhere... in plastic, in disinfectants, in meat that we eat," added Flavia Franconi, of the Society of Italian Pharmacology. ... The alliance between capitalism and religion in the 20th century in America was artifact of the rise of atheistic communism. It's not a sustainable union: a religious worldview cannot ground the rights of the individual to pursue his own happy life by his own rational judgment as required by capitalism. (On that point, see Ayn Rand's essay "Faith and Force" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.) More particularly, the Christian scriptures preach disdain for this world, blind obedience to the whims of God, abject sacrifice for the sake of the poor and weak, acceptance of sin, the positive value of suffering, and the moral corruption of wealth. A person who takes those values seriously cannot preach or practice capitalism. (See this LTE and this one.)
Consequently, I'm not surprised to see supposedly "conservative" religious institutions abandon their marginal respect for individual rights in favor of statist causes like the welfare states and environmentalism. Of course, the Catholic Church has never been a defender of individual rights, particularly not reproductive rights. But its embrace of environmentalist arguments to further that end is something new -- and ominous.Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 |
|
Nature Gets Legal Rights in Ecuador |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:10 AM
Wow: According to the progressive quarterly newspaper Positive News, Nature Gets Legal Rights in Ecuador:
Approximately two-thirds of Ecuador's population voted 'yes' this Autumn, in a historic, national referendum ... [T]he Ecuadorians backed their president, Rafael Correa, in voting for a new progressive constitution - the first in the world to grant Nature the same inalienable rights as human beings. ...
Dr Mario Melo, a lawyer specialising in Environmental Law and an advisor to Fundacion Pachamama, explained that the new constitution redefines people's relationship with Nature. It is not an object to be appropriated and exploited but rather a rights-bearing entity, that should be treated with parity under the law.
"In this sense, the constitution reflects the traditions of the indigenous peoples living in Ecuador, who see Nature as a mother and call her by her proper name, Pachamama," Dr Mario Melo said.
This new bill for Nature's 'right to exist' offers an alternative paradigm. It clearly acknowledges that all life on Earth is interconnected. It must be protected and respected for the sake of all species - beliefs which have long been obvious to Ecuador's indigenous peoples.
The constitution provides explicit legal protection for the environment. Says one section: 'Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has a right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structures, functions and its processes in evolution.'
It also decrees that the government must apply: 'precaution in all the activities that could lead to the extinction of any species, the destruction of ecosystems or cause the permanent alteration of natural cycles.'
Although the government is ultimately responsible for upholding the new laws, in Ecuador, every individual, organisation or community now has the power to represent Nature in the courts and halt any damaging activities.
Alberto Acosta, ex-president of the Ecuadorian Assembly, helped draft the new laws. He said: "If social justice was the axis of struggle in the 20th century, environmental justice is going to be the focus of conflicts for the 21st century." Does anyone know any more about this insanity?Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 |
|
Who Is Really Endangered? |
|
By Paula Hall @ 12:02 AM
A man wants to encourage the growth of a wild turkey population near his farm. He's a hunter -- perhaps he wants some new targets. He may even eat the wild turkeys he kills.
At any rate, he knows there's a pack of coyotes in the area and fears the coyotes will not give the wild turkey population a chance to increase. So he baits some traps for the coyotes with beef laced with a lethal and illegal poison.
He kills some coyotes.
Some bald eagles feed on the coyote carcasses and die, too.
A passerby sees the dead bald eagles and tells the feds, who set out to discover who is responsible for illegally killing the birds. As reported by the New York Times:
With no prior criminal history, he was sentenced to two years of probation and was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.
As a convicted felon, Mr. Collier would have to give up his collection of hunting guns, a blow to his lifestyle. "We kind of got a hunting heritage in this family," he said. "It's what we do." For the sake of two dead birds our government spent thousands of dollars, and used up court and prosecutors' time, to ruin the life of a human being. The birds have no thoughts, no plans for their life, no chosen obligations or enjoyments -- and no rights. Mr. Collier was fined, humiliated, and deprived of one of the chief joys of his life because he accidentally killed some rare birds.
[I]t was not so much the felony conviction for killing two bald eagles that stung the most, and that stung plenty. It was the loss of his hunting rifles that went with it.
For his mother, June S. Collier, it was the pain of seeing her son's name sullied in their town of roughly 5,000 people in southeastern Missouri, where the family had lived, farmed and hunted for four generations. To all you casual environmentalists out there who believe that there "oughta be a law" to protect endangered species, is this really what you wanted? If it isn't what you wanted, have you examined your beliefs lately?
(Cross-posted to ms. think.)Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Paula Hall PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 |
|
The Power of the Fourth Branch of Government |
|
By Gina Liggett @ 12:06 AM
Imagine this: Your yoga instructor will no longer be doing as many Chataranga Dandasanas in yoga class because the EPA has determined that allowable C02 emissions would be exceeded due to proper yoga breathing.
Imagine this: Your household will be restricted in their consumption of pinto beans due to the potential over-production of intestinal gases with a corresponding excessive release of colonic C02 into the atmosphere, exceeding EPA standards.
We haven't even considered the potential impact of feeding cheese to your dog, or those statistically-higher ambulance runs made from nursing homes. We're talking C02 excesses in the...in the....parts per something!
Front Range Objectivism hosted a fascinating supper talk on October 18 by John Lewis, PhD, visiting Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and research scholar and writer in history and classics. His talk was entitled, "A Call to Action: Understanding and Defeating the EPA's Plan for Environmental Dictatorship." From his talk I drew several disturbing conclusions concerning the sweeping powers delegated to the Enviromental Protection Agency as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
As background, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, in Massachusetts et al. v the EPA, ruled in favor of a consortium of environmentalist-friendly plaintiffs, delegating to the Environmental Protection Agency the responsibility of regulating C02 emissions under the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs argued that man-made C02 emissions (and other greenhouse gases) are the primary cause of "global climate change," and that to avoid worldwide disaster action must be taken. The EPA established an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to allow public comment, advising the public of the widespread impacts this would cause to our society and economy. Dr. Lewis argued that, even as lay persons, we can judge and reject the claims of imminent worldwide catastrophe raised by the plaintiffs in this case. (I'm including the link to the comments to the EPA made by Dr. Lewis and scientist Paul Saunders.)
From the talk, three issues struck me as particularly important about this case: the scientific, the political and the constitutional.
First the scientific. The Supreme Court ruling used the widely-reported conclusions of the United Nations-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the scientific basis for regulating C02. The panel's basic conclusion: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
What's concerning about this conclusion from a lay person's observation is the fact that global climate over the eons has changed not just dramatically, but extremely: ice ages, deserts that used to be jungles, plains once covered by oceans, gigantic shifts in northern ice patterns but the opposite occurring in the southern hemisphere, etc.
As far as the validity of the science, the IPCC conclusions were based primarily on computer modeling involving many variables. And much of the data is bad, as in faulty measurements of ground temperature. Then then there's Al Gore's infamous inversion of the C02-temperature relationship: Ice core data actually indicates that over the millennia global temperature increase comes before C02 rise by several hundred years. Finally, as every lay person knows from experience, the best of climatologists can't even predict the local weather very well, let alone weather change on a global scale projected decades into the future.
On to the political. The IPCC is essentially a governmental entity that works by political consensus, like most U.N. endeavors. In fact, as Dr. Lewis pointed out (and as I have learned elsewhere), the conclusions were haggled out first, line-by-line, by bureaucrats. This is not at all proper to the standard method of producing a scientific paper.
There are many respected scientists from such fields as oceanography, climatology and astronomy that study the impact of the oceans and the sun and other factors in global temperature change and C02. Many claim that their input was either dismissed, suppressed or ignored by the IPCC, even when they were initially involved as expert reviewers. And there are many other scientists who simply claim that nobody can get a handle on something as vastly complex as global climate change at our present state of knowledge. But this input is exed-out in the IPCC and the Supreme Court ruling because of politics, not good science.
Finally, Dr. Lewis responded to a question concerning the Constitution and the very disturbing and ever-growing power of the emerging "fourth" branch of government: those rule-making regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services. These are composed of unelected civil employees who have been delegated the power to write detailed rules and regulations impacting rights of property, contract, privacy, and more. Operating behind the scenes, they have enormous power to control our businesses and lives.
And with the new Supreme Court ruling, the EPA will have no choice but to somehow figure out--despite the fact that climate science is really in its infancy--how to regulate all of the C02 emissions we put out. Just imagine the onerous responsibility, tremendous power and grave consequences involved...
And remember, don't sigh too deeply, just grunt.Labels: Environmentalism, Politics
| | | E-mail Gina Liggett PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, October 06, 2008 |
|
John Lewis FROST Talk in Denver: A Call to Action |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:53 PM
If you live in Colorado, I urge you to attend this Front Range Objectivism Supper Talk with Objectivist historian John Lewis. (Notice that an RSVP is required by the 13th.)
- Speaker: Dr. John Lewis
- Talk: A Call to Action: Understanding and Defeating the EPA's Plan for Environmental Dictatorship
- Date: Saturday, October 18, 2008
- Time: 6:00 pm social hour (cash bar); 6:30-6:45 FRO Free Books For Teachers Auction; 7:00 pm dinner; 8:00 pm talk
- Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado
- Cost: $55.00 per individual, $30.00 for students
- RSVP by October 13th to Betty Evans via e-mail (betty@frontrangeobjectivism.com) or phone (303.421.7334). Please send your check to FROST c/o Betty Evans, 1140 US Hwy 287 STE 400-283, Broomfield, CO 80020.
About "A Call to Action: Understanding and Defeating the EPA's Plan for Environmental Dictatorship"
 On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-the outline of a national plan to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide, a "pollutant" according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The EPA admits openly that, under this plan, the entire nation is in non-compliance, and will have to be controlled in minute detail by a maze of bureaucratic rules and procedures. The EPA has invited public comment on this plan, to which the speaker has replied with six reasons to reject these proposals categorically.
This talk will consider why non-scientists should reject claims to an imminent global disaster, and why the true disaster facing us is our own self-created political destruction. This is a moral issue, and it is only by affirming a morality proper to man's life that we can preserve and defend our freedom as sovereign moral beings. To learn more before the talk, go to http://www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm.
About John Lewis
John David Lewis received his PhD in Classics from the University of Cambridge. He is visiting associate professor of political science at Duke University. He has been a senior research scholar in history and classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, and an Anthem Fellow for Objectivist Scholarship. A writer for The Objective Standard, his books are Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens, and Early Greek Lawgivers. If you haven't yet done so, I urge you to speak out on this issue. You can find out how to do so on John Lewis' web site. Here's the e-mail that I sent on Sunday:
Dear EPA Administrator --
Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
I am completely opposed to the rules outlined in this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).
These rules are incompatible with a free society: they would grossly violate our rights as Americans to life, liberty, and property.
These rules are incompatible with science: carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a gas vital to life.
These rules are incompatible with prosperity: business and industry will be strangled by them.
Personally, I'm alarmed by the prospect of EPA regulation of the food supply. The government already does enormous harm by promoting demonstrably unhealthy foods -- particularly grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils -- while doggedly opposing healthy foods like raw milk. More government regulation would only do more damage to the health and happiness of Americans. It would certainly be very bad news for me.
Please -- in the name of American values -- reject these rules.
-- DMH
Diana Hsieh
Sedalia, Colorado Labels: Activism, Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, September 19, 2008 |
|
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:52 PM
This upcoming panel discussion on global warming in Los Angeles looks promising:
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy
A panel discussion at the University of Southern California
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q&A
Who: Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Willie Soon, geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: Taper Hall of Humanities (THH) Room 102, 3501 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles 90089
When: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 7:00 pm
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Keith Lockitch is a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, specializing in science and environmental policy. His writings have appeared in numerous newspapers and he has been a frequent guest on radio shows. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Dr. Lockitch teaches a history of physics course for the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Academic Center. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and has conducted postdoctoral research in relativistic astrophysics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for the journal New Astronomy. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute. He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth, as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection. Labels: Announcements, Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, September 18, 2008 |
|
Environmentalists Run Amok In the UK |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:23 AM
Two recent stories from the UK should serve as a warning for Americans. Unless we fight the battle against bad environmentalist ideas now, we'll be facing similar problems in the US in just a few years.
The first story describes a proposed law in (part of) the UK that would require drivers to turn off their engines if they are stuck in traffic: "Drivers could face £20 fine for leaving engines running in traffic jams".
The goal, of course, is to reduce pollution and carbon emissions, and it would be humorous if it were not so wrong-headed.
The second more alarming story comes via Amit Ghate. A jury in the UK has acquitted a group of Greenpeace vandals who inflicted thousands of dollars worth of damage against a coal-fuled power plant:Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
...Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage -- such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. Of course, once one accepts the principle that it's ok to commit violence against property in order to stop global warming, then the next logical step will be the (currently fictional) argument that, "the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill as many rich Westerners as possible".
How will it be before long before that far-fetched fictional example turns into tomorrow's real-life killing spree?
This is all the more reason to support the "EPA Ruination" project by John Lewis and Paul Saunders. Feel free to forward their "Letter to All Americans" to any appropriate venues and/or use their talking points in your own letters, conversations, etc. Their letter also includes links on how to give feedback to the EPA.
Remember: "Outlawing carbon means outlawing civilization."
This cartoon from Wondermark pretty much says it all:
 Labels: Environmentalism, Law
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, September 09, 2008 |
|
Call to Action: EPA Power Grab |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:11 PM
The following call to action is from John Lewis and Paul Saunders. I strongly urge you to speak out about this attempted power grab by the EPA. Your life, health, and freedom depend on it.
This is a CALL TO ACTION.
In July the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which details their plan to force Americans to reduce emissions of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases." This follows on an Executive Order signed by President Bush, which was made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruling that CO2 is a "pollutant." (!)
This plan will strip the American people of their freedom, and place them under the control of a single, all-powerful, federal agency. Industrial permits, furnace regulations, auto emissions testing, building permits, transportation, and food production--all will fall under the boot of the EPA. Environmentalists will use lawsuits to pressure the EPA to tighten an ever-shrinking noose around the neck of every American.
The EPA invites public comment--until November 11, 2008. That is the deadline for opposing this horrific, tyrannical plan.
We have prepared a cover letter, and a set of comments, that provide our reasons for categorically rejecting this plan. These documents are available on my website:
www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm
Scroll down for Word documents of the cover letter, and the comments (33 pages). We also offer excerpts from the EPA document, and a sample letter to the EPA, along with instructions for writing.
Read this, and act! Please spread the word. Send this website far and wide, put it on the blogosphere, copy it in whole or in part, and write a letter!
Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University
Author, Solon the Thinker and Early Greek Lawgivers
www.classicalideals.com
esse quam videri Please, please, please submit a public comment before the November 11th deadline -- and spread the word about this dangerous expansion of government power.Labels: Activism, Environmentalism, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, August 29, 2008 |
|
Protect People and Livestock, Not Feral Dogs |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
On Wednesday, I received the following e-mail from Mary Fries, the owner of Isle Farms with her husband Rod. I own a cowshare and a half with them, so that I can drink a gallon and a half of their clean, safe, and delicious raw milk each week.
I decided to post it here, with permission, because it highlights the very real evil of blind sympathy for wild animals fostered by animal rights activists. Plus, given how much I love my raw milk, I'd be delighted if others would write a supportive e-mail to the County Commissioner.
Here's the letter from Mary:
Dear Shareholders,
I realized last night that this issue pertains as much to you as it does me, so I wanted to include you and ask for your help.
Yesterday, I was out on the land, checking in on a new calf that was born this weekend. As I was standing in front of the herd, they all started running-straight towards me!-and it was all I could do to spin around one, step, spin again, and end up leaning up again the barb-wired fence. Right behind the cows, at full run, were a pack of wild dogs. One was a pit bull-who headed straight for me. I grabbed an old fence post that was by my feet, and that detoured him from coming closer. He and the other dogs left without further prodding.
This is a good summary of what the news was talking about a few weeks ago, about the dogs here in Ellicott. We personally have been fighting this problem from the get-go. The law regarding wild dogs is this -- you can only shoot them if they are in the midst of attacking your livestock. Many times Rod has gone out there with the shotgun, while the dogs were in the midst of chasing the cows, but by the time he gets in range, the dogs see him coming, and run off.
I phoned Amy Lathen (County Commissioner) almost immediately yesterday. She headed up the plan to finally get these dogs under control, after years of complaints from residents. When I explained what happened, she said she had a contract ready to go with the USDA for the trapping, but they were dragging their feet. Apparently, after the news ran the segment, they got so many emails from not just Colorado Springs residents, but throughout the country, and all the way from INDIA!!, with people berating their efforts as inhumane.
I'm all for animals, but the people emailing do not have any idea of what the farmers and ranchers face when these things happen. For our farm, and many others in the area, this is part of our livelihood. These dogs are WILD, and the situations that are arising, are downright dangerous for both livestock and humans. And humane -- what about the cows? They stress from being chased, and having to fight them off!
I'm asking that all of you take a second and email Amy, let her know that you are behind her effort to help our community keep ourselves and our livestock safe. You can say anything -- a short "we are behind you in your efforts" to "I have ownership in livestock in Ellicott, and support you in helping keep them safe". Whatever you can do, I think she was pretty beat up over this whole thing.
Although -- her final words to me were "That's it. We are going to do this." Here is her email -- AmyLathen@elpasoco.com
Huge thanks to you all, from me AND the cows :o)
One more thing -- after the cows stampeded past me yesterday, they ran in a U shape, and I was trying to figure out why they didn't run VERY far away. Then I happened to notice, surrounded by 18 pairs of hooves, a little head popping up out of the grass -- Baby Dolla :o) They weren't going anywhere with that baby unprotected... what good cows :o)
Mary Here's the letter that I wrote to the County Commissioner:
Dear Ms Lathen,
I'm a resident of Douglas County, but I have livestock in Ellicott. (I have shares in Mary and Rod Fries' herd.)
I'm very concerned to hear of the wild dogs that have been periodically terrorizing their farm, putting people and livestock at risk. So I wish to express my wholehearted support for the county doing whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat posed by these wild dogs.
Human lives and property should not be at the mercy of dangerous feral dogs due to misplaced public sympathy for them. Human beings and human concerns should come first!
Thank you for your efforts to take care of the problem.
(Please feel free to forward this letter to whomever you please, if that would be helpful to you.)
-- DMH Please feel free to write your own brief letter of support to the County Commissioner (AmyLathen@elpasoco.com). She needs some moral support for her totally just decision to prioritize humans and livestock over dangerous feral dogs. Basically, it's a good opportunity for a wee bit of activism against the animal rights crusaders. And it could make a great deal of difference to the safety and welfare of the people and livestock terrorized by these dogs.Labels: Animals, Environmentalism, Law
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, August 25, 2008 |
|
Renewable Energy? |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:02 PM
Keith Lockitch, Resident Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, has a post on renewable energy on The Hill Blog. Here's the philosophically juicy bit:
The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone -- to preserve it untouched by human activity. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy -- even ones that are supposedly green and renewable-will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.
Ultimately, what this means is that environmentalists don't actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether. And since the use of energy is an indispensable component of everything we do in our lives, the greens' opposition to even such ridiculous, impractical sources of energy as solar and wind reveals their basic animus against human life.
Mr. Schwarzenegger added "if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it." But that is the whole point. On green philosophy, there is literally no place on earth for mankind. Nice!Labels: Environmentalism, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 |
|
Fortunately, Art Doesn't Reflect Reality... |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:47 PM
...At least not yet. Here's a description of one of the plays in the summer 2008 Edinburgh Festival (emphasis mine):Eco-Friendly Jihad
Like The Guantanamo Years, it is a vehicle for his [Abie Philbin Bowman's] particular brand of comedy, a series of jokes (with some serious bits thrown in ) woven around an unlikely narrative which his blarney makes believable. This one has to do with meeting a pretty, young Scots-Bangla woman who adheres to the view that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill as many rich Westerners as possible.
Bowman has a gift for winning an audience over, and coaxing original, friendly humour from subjects that are neither friendly nor funny. He's done his homework, and there are plenty of facts here, but the underlying message is a bleak one: as long as we continue being middle-class consumers, it ain't looking good for the human race. Normally, I wouldn't take stuff like this too seriously. But over the years I've seen how frequently yesterday's ridiculous hypothetical example becomes tomorrow's real-life issue.
And although framed as a comedy, the essential anti-man premises of environmentalism should be apparent.
(Via Instapundit.)Labels: Art, Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, August 04, 2008 |
|
Is Climate Change Racist? |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 3:02 PM
Blogger LaShawn Barber skewers the latest report from the leftist Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, entitled "A Climate of Change: African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy in the U.S.".
According to the report:African Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-Hispanic whites per capita. Though far less responsible for climate change, African Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites. Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability. African Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S. Rand Simberg notes that this is almost a real-life version of the parody New York Times headline, "World Ends: Women And Minorities Hit Hardest".
Or as Simberg notes, "I'm sure glad that this issue hasn't been politicized."Labels: Environmentalism, Politics
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Saturday, August 02, 2008 |
|
Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 6:52 AM
Sometimes The Onion is just f***ing brilliant. Here are a few excerpts from their story, "Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet":EARTH -- Former vice president Al Gore -- who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save -- launched his infant son into space Monday in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world.
...Al Gore -- or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al -- placed his son, Kal-Al, gently in the one-passenger rocket ship, his brow furrowed by the great weight he carried in preserving the sole survivor of humanity's hubristic folly.
"There is nothing left now but to ensure that my infant son does not meet the same fate as the rest of my doomed race," Gore said. "I will send him to a new planet, where he will, I hope, be raised by simple but kindly country folk and grow up to be a hero and protector to his adopted home."
...In the final moments before the Earth's destruction, Gore expressed hope that his son would one day grow up to carry on his mission by fighting for truth, justice, and the American way elsewhere in the universe, using his Earth-given superpowers to become a champion of the downtrodden and a reducer of carbon emissions across the galaxy. Labels: Environmentalism, Funny
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 |
|
The Environmentalist Life |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:41 PM
Sigh:
Dear Miss Manners:
A conflict of values: I have always been committed to the practice of sending handwritten expressions of thanks for kindnesses in an appropriate and timely manner, and have valued receiving the same from others.
However, I am also committed to doing my small part to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on our precious environment. I recycle, take canvas bags when I shop, receive and pay bills electronically, and send electronic greeting cards to friends. I have canceled all catalogues and magazine subscriptions, carefully managed the use of electricity and gas in my home, and am careful about fuel consumption in my auto.
I find myself feeling guilty when I write a thank-you note, as each note uses resources in the form of both the paper on which it is written and the fuel required to send it from place to place. I would like to replace these notes with similarly appropriate expressions of thanks via e-mail to those of my friends who I know use e-mail. I would value your thoughts on this dilemma. Wow. Gaia forbid that a person use and transport a wee bit of paper!Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 |
|
The Coming Merger of Religion and Environmentalism |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:16 AM
At the OCON 2008 conference, one of the predictions made by Dr. Yaron Brook and Dr. Onkar Ghate was the coming convergence of religion and environmentalism in the US.
This is been mentioned in news stories in the past, and further evidence of this can be found in this recent story from the July 18, 2008 New York Times:Pope Warns on Environment
Pope Benedict XVI used his first major address at the Roman Catholic Church's youth festival here [Sydney, Australia] on Thursday to warn that the world was being scarred and its natural resources used up by humanity's "insatiable consumption."
In a broad criticism of consumer culture, before a crowd of more than 140,000, Pope Benedict reinforced the Vatican's growing concern with protecting the environment, a theme he has addressed before. Although environmentalism and religion would seem to be fairly disparate ideologies, Drs. Brook and Ghate point out that the two could easily unite in an "unholy marriage" in which each strengthens the other.
For instance, many of the radical environmentalists believe they have failed in their attempts to change the culture. Although they had hoped that their ideas would cause Americans to renounce industrial society, this simply hasn't happened. Americans are not willing to sacrifice their current level of material prosperty for a nebulous ecological concept such as "Gaia". On the other hand, they might be willing to renounce material prosperity if their religion preaches that such material prosperity is immoral. And some radical environmentalists are starting to recognize this fact.
Similarly, many of the younger religionists are moving beyond a concern with traditional "social conservative" issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) and onto causes more typically associated with the secular left, such as "economic justice" and environmentalism. They frame environmentalism in terms of "stewardship" over God's creation (the Earth).
Religion also thrives on guilt. If people start to feel guilty for productive activities in the material world necessary for physical survival, then religion could gain much more power over the human spirit. Hence, there is a strong possibility of a synergy between environmentalism and religion, especially in the younger generation.
As Brook and Ghate note, what unites the environmentalists and religionists is the "don't move" approach. The environmentalists favor a "don't move" approach towards the material world. They want mankind to maintain a static relationship relative to the natural world. Any kind of change made to improve man's lot is viewed as disrupting this desirable "harmony" and therefore wrong.
Similarly, the religionists advocate a "don't move" approach towards man's mind. Obedience to authority is preferred over an independent mind that asks questions and is willing to challenge authority.
A union of religion and environmentalism could therefore form a powerful ideology which preaches that your very existence is a sin and that you should therefore feel guilty for merely wanting to live.
Fortunately, most Americans do not feel that way, at least not yet. But if this ideology ever gains a foothold in the American psyche, then we will be in deep trouble. Such an ideology would kill the innovative American spirit that has created computers, antibiotics, and factories, bring material progress to a halt, and return us to the horrors of a medieval existence, where life was "nasty, brutish, and short".
Hence, this is why it's important for humans to explicitly recognize that it's morally proper to want to live, that it's right to exercise our minds in order to better our lives, and that it's right to utilize natural resources according to our rational judgment for human benefit.
And this is why I'm proud to wear my Objective Standard t-shirt that reads, "Exploit the Earth Or Die". (Only $19.95!)
 Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, July 18, 2008 |
|
Global Warming Science In Action |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:00 PM
Dedicated scientists will stop at nothing in the fight against global warming: In an attempt to understand the extent of cow flatulence on global warming, scientists in Argentina are strapping plastic bags to the backs of cows to capture their emissions. Argentina has more than 55 million cows, making it a leading producer of beef. In the study, the scientists were surprised to discover that a standard 550-kg cow produces between 800 to 1,000 liters of emissions, including methane, each day...
"When we got the first results, we were surprised," said Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Argentina. "Thirty percent of Argentina's (total greenhouse) emissions could be generated by cattle."
In their study, the researchers attached balloon-like plastic packs to the backs of at least 10 cows. A tube running to the animals' stomachs collected the gas inside the backpacks, which were then hung from the roof of the corral for analysis.
Unfortunately, the global warming authoritarians will just use this as an excuse to clamp down on cows as well as people.Labels: Environmentalism
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, May 29, 2008 |
|
Climate Change |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:22 AM
 Climate change on the planet Jupiter is causing it to develop another Red Spot:In what's beginning to look like a case of planetary measles, a third red spot has appeared alongside its cousins — the Great Red Spot and Red Spot Jr. — in the turbulent Jovian atmosphere.
This third red spot, which is a fraction of the size of the two other features, lies to the west of the Great Red Spot in the same latitude band of clouds.
...The Hubble and Keck images may support the idea that Jupiter is in the midst of global climate change, as first proposed in 2004 by Phil Marcus, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. The planet's temperatures may be changing by 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The giant planet is getting warmer near the equator and cooler near the South Pole. He predicted that large changes would start in the southern hemisphere around 2006, causing the jet streams to become unstable and spawn new vortices. I'm sure this must be mankind's fault somehow...Labels: Environmentalism, Science
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 |
|
Turning Off the Lights of the World |
|
By Paula Hall @ 1:40 AM
Ayn Rand's masterpiece Atlas Shrugged ends when the lights go out in the world:
The plane was above the peaks of the skyscrapers when suddenly, with the abruptness of a shudder, as if the ground had parted to engulf it, the city disappeared from the face of the earth. It took them a moment to realize that the panic had reached the power stations---and that the lights of New York had gone out. . . .
She remembered the story Francisco had told her: "He had quit the Twentieth Century. He was living in a garret in a slum neighborhood. He stepped to the window and pointed at the skyscrapers of the city. He said that we had to extinguish the lights of the world, and when we would see the lights of New York go out, we would know that our job was done." In the novel, the lights go out as a result of willful evasion -- the refusal of the world's leaders to acknowledge that it is the power of the mind to reform nature in its own image that keeps the world alight. Evil enough, as far as it goes.
Now it's worse. Now there are people actively looking for the world's light switch and positively salivating at the prospect of flipping it off.
Many commentators, not just at NoodleFood, have identified the man-hating irrationality in the leadership of the environmental movement. (For example, see NoodleFood here; see The Ayn Rand Institute here and here.) But I speak of a new horror: the advent of lawsuits charging specific companies with responsibility for global warming and demanding compensation for damages. This phenomenon unites an unholy trinity of destructive factions: the acolytes of the environmental movement; fear-ridden and pandering lawmakers; and those prepared to cash in on the regulatory scheme resulting from the self-reinforcing lunacy of the first two -- the plaintiff's bar.
Kivalina is an Inupiat Eskimo village in Alaska. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, over one-quarter of Kivalina's residents lived below the poverty line. In 2006 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers described Kivalina as follows:
Kivalina is home to 402 residents, who live in very overcrowded conditions in just over 70 homes. The community is predominately Alaska Native, and residents depend on subsistence activities for a majority of their caloric intake. The community does not have a piped water or sewer system, except for running/piped water in its school and washeteria. Residents rely on self-haul water and on honey buckets for human waste. 
The village is experiencing catastrophic coastal erosion; ice which used to prevent shore damage from fall and winter storms has been melting. Unsurprising, given its location, shown above (New Orleans, anyone?). To continue its existence, the village must relocate. The U.S. Army Corps of engineers estimates it will cost anywhere between $150 - $250 million.
Kivalina is suing energy companies for $400 million.
Two non-profits, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment have filed suit on behalf of Kivalina against 24 energy companies. The nonprofits have teamed up with -- wait for it -- attorneys who successfully sued big tobacco companies. If the suit is succesful, the attorneys' fees will be about 30% to 40% of the recovery. Meaning that what's left for the plaintiffs will be pretty much the amount the U.S. Army thinks it will cost to relocate the village. Pretty neat how that works out, eh?
The Atlantic Monthly writes:
[T]he suit also accuses eight of the firms (American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company) of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking—by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus. In other words, attorneys plan to throw the tobacco playbook at rich energy companies. The message the case wishes to convey is that energy companies knowingly caused global warming and must pay for the damage they've wrought by selling the fossil fuels that provide the world with energy.
There is no scientific consensus on the extent or causation of global warming (putting it charitably). But that is not the biggest problem with the lawsuit. The real problem is that to the extent the lawsuit is successful, it brings mankind closer to the squalid standard of living of the population of Kivalina.
The ability to use fossil fuels for our own benefit is the predominant reason humans enjoy the standard of living that we do. And it's not like this is a big secret: witness developing nations' persistent objections to global emissions policies on the grounds that their priority is economic development.
So here we have the spectacle of million-dollar attorneys . . .
. . . driving their fossil-fueled cars to work
. . . where they'll work well into the night in offices brightly lit using energy provided by the companies they're suing
. . . after which they'll go home to luxurious houses made comfortable through the use of energy to warm and cool their environment
. . . and enjoy a quality of life that would not exist but for the energy companies their lawsuits could put out of business.
There is a terrific irony here. The residents of Kivalina have a subsistence economy. The difference between a subsistence economy and the standard of living most Americans take for granted is based on the use and technology of energy. It takes energy to create factories that manufacture plumbing pipes and pre-packaged food, and it would take energy to transport these conveniences of modern life all the way up to Alaska by air, sea and land. But after lawsuits like this one have destroyed energy companies by wringing billions of dollars out of them on the grounds they've covered up evidence that does not exist, we may all end up living like the residents of Kivalina.Labels: Environmentalism, Law
| | | E-mail Paula Hall PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
