It is not often that I turn a comment into a complete post, but this comment from Willis Eschenbach on the Trust and Mistrust article today, merits such a promotion. – Anthony
Which death is more troubling? (images: from NOAA, upper, Wikimedia, lower)
Willis Eschenbach
I am surprised at the visceral nature of the rejection of the term “environmentalist”. I had not realized it had gotten that bad. I don’t think I’d want to be one of those if that’s how people feel.
It also appears that the new preferred term is “conservationist”. But as I said, I don’t make those fine distinctions, so I’m not sure how that differs from the “e-word”.
So let me modify my statement, and say that I am a conservamentalist. I would define that as someone who thinks long and hard about the effect of our actions on the tangled web of life that surrounds us.
I was fishing herring in the Bering Sea one season. I heard on the radio that the annual killing of the Canadian Arctic fur seals had begun, along with the obligatory protests that seem to be required these days.
We’d caught about fifty tonnes of herring that day, killing on the order of a million living beings. I remember thinking how if some creature has big soft baby eyes, it gets lots of sympathy. But if a creature is slimy and has cold fish-eyes, its death doesn’t matter. People hated the seal killers for killing a few dozen creatures, while I killed millions of creatures and was ignored.
If I had to pick one word to describe my position on the ecological webs that surround us, it would be “realist”. Life eats life to live. I am not a man who eats the meat and blames the butcher.
I’ve worked a good deal as a builder. I build with wood. I cut down trees to make room for the building I live in. I grew up in the forest, my step-daddy was a timber feller, the royalty of the logging fraternity. I’ve worked killing trees on an industrial scale.
And I’ll also fight like crazy to see the logging done right. with proper roads and proper setbacks, and proper slope limits, and reforestation. I’ve seen what bad logging practices look like and do.
So for me, a conservamentalist is someone who has thought hard about and balanced the needs for wood and cleared land, balanced those needs with the way that wood is harvested. I grew up in the middle of hundreds of square miles of virgin forest. I have a deep and abiding admiration for that raw wildness. And yet, I cut down trees. I just want to see things done carefully and with forethought, see them done properly with respect for the consequences. I don’t elevate some mythical “Nature” above humans, and I don’t forget nature either.
I was a sport salmon fishing guide a couple years ago, on the Kenai River in Alaska, as I described here. Kenai River king salmon are magnificent beings, fifty pounds or more of powerful, glittering, awe-inspiring fish. When one of my clients caught a salmon, I always thanked the fish in a loud voice for giving up its life for us. Life eats life, beings die so that I can live, and I can’t ignore that. I don’t let it keep me from fishing salmon, but I won’t pretend that I am not killing a splendiferous entity. Some of my clients understood.
Heck, I apologize to trees when I cut them down. Yeah, I know it looks dumb, a grown man talking to trees. But it doesn’t stop me from cutting them down by the scores if need be, I’m a realist. Life eats life. Me, I don’t take killing anything lightly, be it redwood or herring or salmon. Someday, I’ll be chopped down in the same way.
So I’m forming the Conservamentalist Party, our motto will be,“Conservamentalists unite! You have nothing to lose but your minds”.
Now, back to the climate…
And the angel of the Lord came unto me,
Snatching me up from my place of slumber,
And took me on high,
And higher still until we moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he bore me unto a vast farmland of our own midwest,
And as we descended cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay, a million voices,
Full of fear.
And terror possessed me at end.
And I begged,
“Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?”
And the angel said unto me,
“These are the cries of the carrots,
The cries of the carrots.
You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day
And to them it is the holocaust.”
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one millions terrified brothers
And roared,
“Hear me now,
I have seen the light,
They have a consciousness,
They have a life,
They have a soul.
Damn you!
Let the rabbits wear glasses,
Save our brothers…can I get an amen?
Can I get a hallelujah? thank you, Jesus.
Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on…
This is necessary
Lyrics from a song by Tool called “Disgustipated”, you can listen to it here if so inclined. Should have posted it yesterday, somewhat OT but not completely IMO. It is tongue in cheek, I don’t really believe carrots have souls but the point remains, as Willis eloquently raised, life feeds on life… and for me acceptance of that fact instead of denial is an important life lesson for all.
James Sexton:
You did not understand my comment about alcohol. I am opposed to converting grain to alcohol for fuel for cars. It is absurd, inefficient, and damages cars earlier, so we have to spend extra energy to make a new car.
My alcohol-from-grain objection point was that we are taking food from people who were in famine situations even before we began converting corn to ethanol, for the sake of the eco-insane fundamentalists’ uneducated, illogical mind set.
Now, the neo-Malthusians who want people dead need only volunteer as substrates for Obama’s new Soylent Green Bill – then we can all be happy!
That reminds me of a joke:
A farmer at a fair had a pig that was so highly trained that it could count, guess peoples’ weight, etc. It only had three legs. After a strong performance by the animal, an inquisitive bystander asked, “how did the pig lose its leg?” To which the farmer replied, “a pig that smart you don’t eat all at once.”
Nice explanation of your belief Willis. I guess the main question is: why?
Why engage with folks who seek to put down others with their rhetoric and their labels?
For those who call themselves, “environmentalist”, what exactly does this label mean? Do you mean you care about the environment? That’s not a terribly useful label then is it… how many people do you know that DON’T care about the environment? How many people do you know that want pollution??? Or, does the term imply that one REALLY cares about the environment (again, as opposed to….???).
Why not simply call yourself a, “Non-wife-beater”? The use of the term dictates the rest of the discussion. How can one NOT obviously be a member of the non-wife-beaters?? If you don’t explicitly agree with the platform of the non-wife-beater movement and their beliefs, then clearly you must be a WIFE BEATER! Same thing with the term, “environmentalist”. It’s nonsense.
Bruce
David
I guess it is hard to believe but the Federal Reserve really is privately owned! The structure of the FED is detailed on their website, it is no secret. Who the ultimate shareholders of the owning banks are, is another question.
Just google search “banking quotes” and you will get reams of statements by politicians and bankers themselves illustrating how our money system works. i also recommend “money as debt”, a short movie detailing how debt money works.
in my opinion private control of money and debt money are the root of tyranny, that is the whole point of having established such a system.
“the Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” –Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
The FED is composed of 12 regional reserve banks owned by shareholders in their respective region: generally the largest banks have the most shares. And who owns those member banks?
And only recently the New York Fed defended itself against a FOIA request from Bloomberg media by saying since they are not a Government entity, they are not subject to FOIA.
And don’t forget the whole debt money thing. you are paying interest on money created out of nothing. you are required to accept FED notes as legal tender, and the FED alone controls the value of those notes. if they were not legal tender, they would be worthless. If you had $19 in 1913 you had a months wage. If you have nineteen dollars today you maybe have an hours wage. If you had an ounce of gold in 1913, you had $19. If you have an ounce of gold today you have something like $1200. The dollar has lost 96% of it’s value since the advent of the FED.
bubbagyro (08:59:15) :
James Sexton:
You did not understand my comment about alcohol. I am opposed to converting grain to alcohol for fuel for cars. It is absurd, inefficient, and damages cars earlier, so we have to spend extra energy to make a new car.
My alcohol-from-grain objection point was that we are taking food from people who were in famine situations even before we began converting corn to ethanol, for the sake of the eco-insane fundamentalists’ uneducated, illogical mind set.
Now, the neo-Malthusians who want people dead need only volunteer as substrates for Obama’s new Soylent Green Bill – then we can all be happy!
lol, uhmm, yeh, that was, yet another poor attempt a humor. I totally agree about the grain alcohol as fuel. There were many other ways to do it. They mostly use corn here in the states. A high priced commodity to begin with. Covers much ground and requires a special head on a combine to harvest. This drove the price of corn so high, that it was cheaper to make plain gasoline. All at the same time lessening the supply of food. Brilliant. If they were going to be that silly, why didn’t they just have a grass processing center on each corner where after a mowing, the people could deliver the clippings for processing? I’m pretty sure the use of corn(and other high priced commodities) was to ensure it wasn’t going to be effective.
No-ones escapes killing to live — even vegans kills billions of beings everyday in order to survive.
peterhodges;
The FED is composed of 12 regional reserve banks owned by shareholders in their respective region: generally the largest banks have the most shares. And who owns those member banks?>>
Nope. The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States and was created by an act of Congress which maintains ovesight. It has a board of directors, a chairman and a vice-chairman all appointed by the President. The Federal Reserve operates (is not composed of, big difference) 12 regional reserve banks. Each district reserve bank in turn has a board of directors comprised as follows:
“Each Reserve Bank has its own board of nine directors chosen from outside the Bank as provided by law. The boards of the Reserve Banks are intended to represent a cross-section of banking, commercial, agricultural, industrial, and public interests within the Federal Reserve District. Three directors, designated Class A directors, represent commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. Three Class B and three Class C directors represent the public. The member commercial banks in each District elect the Class A and Class B directors. The Board of Governors appoints the Class C directors to their posts. From the Class C directors, the Board of Governors selects one person as chairman and another as deputy chairman. No Class B or Class C director may be an officer, director, or employee of a bank or a bank holding company. No Class C director may own stock in a bank or a bank holding company. The directors in turn nominate a president and first vice president of the Reserve Bank, whose selection is subject to approval by the Board of Governors.”
So the commercial banks get to elect 6 of nine directors at each reserve bank, only three of which can even be in the banking industry. their budget is subject to approval by the Federal Reserve, and they are accountable to the Federal Reserve which sets broad monetary policy which the reserve banks only implement, not define (though they can recommend but they have no authority). The Federal Reserve is in turn accountable to congress and the President, though in matters of monetary policy they can act without approval, they just get fired if they screw up.
So, there are no “private interests” that “own” the Fed.
@davidmhoffer
‘Now MY original point was that animals don’t kill for sport, and I cited weasels as the exception that proves the rule.’
That’s presuming a lot. “For sport” is a human definition. What we’d call crazed, maybe mass, murder might be for the dog, wolf, rat, chimpanzee, or the polar bear, just that: “for sport”.
The human “need” to hunt for sport might actually not be viewed as sport by a hummingbird. In the eyes of the hummingbirds humans might be the crazed mass murderers. 😉
davidmhoffer (15:39:02) : So, there are no “private interests” that “own” the Fed.
Well that is just plain wrong. The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System for each region. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks. that is slightly out of date information, as i believe the fed now requires all banks to deposit at the FED and thus receive shares.
I will grant that one may dispute whether the banks control the government or the governments control the banks. and on that we clearly disagree! you don’t have to believe me or them, but i resort to an appeal to authority:
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes.”– Napoleon
“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government’s institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers”– Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency
“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized…”- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.
“A great industrial nation is controlled by it’s system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world– no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”- President Woodrow Wilson, in his memoirs
b franklin, jefferson, madison, jackson, van buren, lincoln, garfield; all opposed a banking monopoly, especially in private hands. congress is supposed to regulate the value of the currency which has nothing to do with a central bank or banking in general. paper money as legal tender is expressly ommitted from the constitution.
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”-Henry Ford
a true free market capitalist ought to prefer a free banking system with real money. those opposed to freedom oppose free banking and real money:
“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world.
The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” – 1862 The Times of London
thanks for the conversation david, and thanks for the barstool and table, A and mods
and a few more parting shot appeals to authority 😉
“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” – President James A. Garfield
“Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.” – Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of Exchequer
“Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, former president, Bank of England
A conservationist wishes to conserve nature. An environ-mentalist is someone who wishes to hypnotize you and convince you that he is conserving nature.
peterhodges;
Your selective use of quotes and out of context statements combined with a dogged determination to fit the facts to your theory, is impressive and compelling. That you actually believe it may be a real possibility. I suppose some might say that a discussion regarding your theory of who controls the money supply doesn’t belong on a science blog. My thought is all myths, scientific or economic, should be debunked at every opportunity.
Peter, the FED pumping money into the economy by increasing the money supply will in fact to much harm in the long term, driving yet another wave of inflation and further devalueing the American greenback. Some say the short term gain might even cause currency collaps at some point. But make no mistake about the fact that the decisions regarding monetary policy are in the hands of officials like Bernanke who have been appointed by politicians elected to office like Obama.
If the banks you accuse of somehow controlling what are clearly political decisions by appointed officials through a shareholder system that doesn’t even exist, then the money supply would be constrained, not increased. There is no value to a bank to drive inflation. Inflation is a bank’s worst enemy because the money they loan out is paid back to them with dollars that have lost their value. The bank is only profitable when the money it lends is repaid at an interest rate higher than that of inflation. If inflation spirals out of control after the loan is made, the bank loses money. If interest rates go higher than out of control inflation rates, commerce comes to a halt because the cost of borrowing exceeds the possible rate of return. Banks are most profitable in a constrained money supply (which causes interest rates to rise because businesses most compete for available financing) combined with low levels of inflation (which allows a larger spread between the interest rate and the rate of inflation).
If the banks had the influence you claim, that would be their goal, not what the FED is doing right now.
“right wing scream team”, indeed. How poetic. Designed as a talking point to stick in your mind long after any other association to the concept might be lost. An Alinsky-type tactic. When science isn’t going your way, attack and demonize the “opposition.”
I agree with the gist of the posted article. And any smart harvester of anything seeks to protect what they harvest, not for just the “balance” of nature which, by the way, is kill and be killed, but because it ensures bountiful harvests in the future. I have a friend who has a lifetime hunting license in Oklahoma. OK has done so well with their wild deer management and keeping the land clean, that the herds are overpopulated, especially with old doe who don’t fawn anymore. So much so that the state wildlife is begging hunters to harvest the old doe, which is plenty of good meat. The reason being that the old doe are also using resources that would be better kept for the fawning doe and their young. A herd is improved by getting rid of the old and infirm.
When I fish, I buy a fishing license. Not only to avoid penalty, but to underwrite fish and game management. It pays to have the lakes re-stocked. Species of fish have blossomed to healthy numbers because of law-abiding fishermen paying for licenses which funds the raising of fish for re-stocking of lakes. But we all eat and are eaten.
If a human is buried directly in the ground without casket, the worms, bacteria, the soil itself, will leach our the components of our physical make-up. “From the dust didst thou come and to the dust shalt thou return.” And yes, organs from a deer that is field-dressed in the forest do not go to waste. And the hide, too. We can wear the hide. Ted Nugent once did an impression of an environmental protestor who gave him grief from wearing leather goods (the hide of one animal.) He pointed out, instead, because of their predilection to wear cotton, they are also causing the land to be cleared of natural habitat and many creatures do die or are misplaced to clear a field for cotton. Cotton needs direct exposure to the sun and leaches the soil from both the land clearing and the growth of cotton. When you could kill just one animal, and have enough food for a while and some clothes, and the rest of the animals in the forest can go about their business.
But I bet we’re the only species that considers ourselves a blight upon the Earth. The other species just go about living as best they can, doing what they can, and nature limits them, so to speak. Which species is smarter?
Ray (13:07): “The natives in North America always had a sustainable way of life ”
Would you include the buffalo jump in that “sustainable way of life”?
Could I please request that the people discussing the US Reserve Bank find a thread that is actually about the US Reserve Bank and discuss it there?
Many thanks,
w.
Shona: the orca is another single-member species of its genus. as is the hippopotamus. i dont think its as uncommon as you think. any experts around?