Species at risk: Is help on disk?
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
J
JeffD
Guest
Did we miss something? Aren't there huge areas spread throughout the state dedicated to wildlife management, i.e. areas managed by the Division of Fish and Wildlife? And if these environmentalists are so interested in keeping areas wild, why don't they use their time and money (usually others) to dedicating land as nature areas? How about the DeMarco Super Park?
I'm against over development, and any development should be done wisely, not because some Disney Ecologist saw some stupid posionous snake, but for people to enjoy.
I'm against over development, and any development should be done wisely, not because some Disney Ecologist saw some stupid posionous snake, but for people to enjoy.
B
bach2yoga
Guest
JeffD said:
Yes, for us to enjoy...the snakes, and any other creatures in fact, have no right to life unless we as homo sapiens deem their life worthwhile. After all, we are the smartest creatures, make the biggest weapons and we have been given Biblical dominion, right? The animals and plants are here for us to use as we see fit. Might makes right.
Does that mean that I want to have my children bitten by a snake and that I am valueing the snake above my children's lives? Not a chance. My kids are more likely to die in an auto accident than by being bitten by a rattler. So should cars be banned? (ok, so some people think they should, but not me.) If it came down to a face to face with the snake, I would do everything humanly possible to protect my children, including killing the snake. That's pure survival instincts, it is a natural and integral part of nature. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, or ethics. It is simply how it is, that death begets life, and life is only possible because of death. You accept that and respect it for what it is.
But I don't live in that area for a reason, and if you do you need to understand and accept the risk that comes with living there. It's part of nature, and nature is red in tooth and claw as they say. To think that I can or should eliminate anything in my environment that is potentially dangerous to me can be shortsighted. Nature has a system of checks and balances, a food chain, and predators and prey for a reason. So go ahead and write a parody on the circle of life :lol: ! But the truth of the matter is that no individual or creature exists as a singularity. The web that ties our expanding universe together is multifaceted and intricate, masterfully woven, and there is no way to tell how damaging one section of the web is going to affect the rest of it.
And I do put my money where my mouth is, and am a volunteering member of a couple of conservation groups (not the Sierra Club, though, ha!). If I were rich (which I am not!) I would put a lot more of my money there.
Oh well. I too agree that development should be done wisely, but I think that our ideas of "wisely" are quite different. You're really ok, Jeff, so don't take my spouting off personally, but we sure don't see eye to eye on that one!! :not4me:
re: the disk, The Natural Heritage Database is used in that sort of manner--when a developer wants to plan a development he has to pay for a search of the database to see whether or not there have been any imperiled species reported. And just because the database doesn't reflect it doesn't mean that there aren't, merely that no one has reported it to the database. If there has been a report of threatened/endangered species, then the developer must pay to have a survey of the area done. This is what was done in Evesham prior to building, but unfortunately, the developer chose a young kid fresh out of college to survey the area who had a degree, but no experience and no background in herpetology. In addition to the 2 snakes, there were also 3 threatened/endangered plant species on the original report for that area.
Renee
I have to agree with Renee. If you're going to build in the Pine Barrens, build wisely. Since it's easier for humans to be flexible with the environment than it is for the environment to be flexable with us, we're the ones who should build & live with an eye towards how we can live in harmony.
Unfortunately todays society doesn't think like that. We all want our freshly manicured lawns, 2.5 kids, and a SUV in the driveway. We'll have our inground pools and Weber BBQ grilles, and when a snake or bear comes by, KILL IT because it might do something that it's supposed to do - bite things.
Just like the people who sued the town because they wanted to close the pig farm that had been there for years before their houses were built, you have to accept the area around you when you build or buy a house. I don't see too many people putting walls up around their beachfront houses because they don't like the sight of the ocean.
Unfortunately todays society doesn't think like that. We all want our freshly manicured lawns, 2.5 kids, and a SUV in the driveway. We'll have our inground pools and Weber BBQ grilles, and when a snake or bear comes by, KILL IT because it might do something that it's supposed to do - bite things.
Just like the people who sued the town because they wanted to close the pig farm that had been there for years before their houses were built, you have to accept the area around you when you build or buy a house. I don't see too many people putting walls up around their beachfront houses because they don't like the sight of the ocean.
J
JeffD
Guest
There's a difference between a pig farm and snakes, or any other animal for that matter. The pig farm is run by humans; the snake is an animal. People have rights; animals don't. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a balance and that we should kill all the buffalo. Overusing anything is bad. As I pointed out, there are places dedicated to fostering wildlife. But when it comes to a conflict between humans and animals, I believe the humans should trump the animals, even if the animals are there first.
When Lisa was little, she started watching CAPTAIN PLANET. I watched it along with her. At first, it seemed good. Captain Planet was fighting polluters. But after watching it awhile, it seemed to send a message that INDUSTRY BAD GUY; ENVIRONMENTALISTS GOOD GUY. The final straw, when I told Lisa she wasn't allowed to watch the show any more, was a "public service announcement" by Captain Planet. Captain planet told kids that if a fly gets in your house, at all costs, gently let it outside. DON'T KILL IT, demanded Captain Planet. It was years later that I learned that an environmentalist whacko from CNN authored CAPTAIN PLANET.
As I said, I don't like over development. But even limited development has to take place somewhere. Do people have to go through all the red tape, the bureauracy, the courts, the expense... just for a wild animal, a poisionous one at that?
I understand your point, Rene, about the normal risks in life. But we also need to minimize risks. We have cars inspected and encourage safe driving, take safety precautions when we work, etc. But what bewilders me is the lengths people take to protect something that can kill you? I don't advocate being a copycat and driving all the snakes out of the Pine Barrens the way Saint Patrick did in Ireland (I know it's just a tale). Again, there are areas dedicated to wildlife management. It's not that critical if one critter in one area, or for that matter, worldwide bites the dust. The dinosours became extinct. And so what? Removing one strand in the ecosystem is not like Fibber McGee's Closet, of FIBBER McGee & Molly radio fame, where one tiny item is taken from the top of the junk pile in the closet and the whole pile comes crashing down, with, after a few seconds pause, there is one last "tink." Yes, everything is interconnected, but every species every place IS NOT inexpendable. And environmental degradation is not irrepairable. I've been reading in Aldo Leopolds A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC about the importance of the interaction of the various flora and fauna on a farm, where when one of the strands is ignored, the farm fails to produce after time.
I don't think we just are right to deal with wild animals if our health is at stake. In a particular land area, we have the right to pick and choose what we prefer. And, ah yes, seems we've been here before. Land can be managed to attract certain kinds of birds to your yard. I prefer bluebirds or doves to crows. In A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC, Leopold gets into the various choices land owners make when they manage their property.
BTW, I did a parody of Elton's CIRCLE OF LIFE, not about environmentalism, but about local politicans. I called it THE CIRCLE OF STRIFE. I did, however, do a parody of that goofy Disney Pocahotis (sp?) song COLORS OF THE WIND. I had someone answer each of her rhetorical questions. Maybe I can find it. It started with:
Do you think you own the land you walk on?
Yes, as a matter of fact I really do.
When Lisa was little, she started watching CAPTAIN PLANET. I watched it along with her. At first, it seemed good. Captain Planet was fighting polluters. But after watching it awhile, it seemed to send a message that INDUSTRY BAD GUY; ENVIRONMENTALISTS GOOD GUY. The final straw, when I told Lisa she wasn't allowed to watch the show any more, was a "public service announcement" by Captain Planet. Captain planet told kids that if a fly gets in your house, at all costs, gently let it outside. DON'T KILL IT, demanded Captain Planet. It was years later that I learned that an environmentalist whacko from CNN authored CAPTAIN PLANET.
As I said, I don't like over development. But even limited development has to take place somewhere. Do people have to go through all the red tape, the bureauracy, the courts, the expense... just for a wild animal, a poisionous one at that?
I understand your point, Rene, about the normal risks in life. But we also need to minimize risks. We have cars inspected and encourage safe driving, take safety precautions when we work, etc. But what bewilders me is the lengths people take to protect something that can kill you? I don't advocate being a copycat and driving all the snakes out of the Pine Barrens the way Saint Patrick did in Ireland (I know it's just a tale). Again, there are areas dedicated to wildlife management. It's not that critical if one critter in one area, or for that matter, worldwide bites the dust. The dinosours became extinct. And so what? Removing one strand in the ecosystem is not like Fibber McGee's Closet, of FIBBER McGee & Molly radio fame, where one tiny item is taken from the top of the junk pile in the closet and the whole pile comes crashing down, with, after a few seconds pause, there is one last "tink." Yes, everything is interconnected, but every species every place IS NOT inexpendable. And environmental degradation is not irrepairable. I've been reading in Aldo Leopolds A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC about the importance of the interaction of the various flora and fauna on a farm, where when one of the strands is ignored, the farm fails to produce after time.
I don't think we just are right to deal with wild animals if our health is at stake. In a particular land area, we have the right to pick and choose what we prefer. And, ah yes, seems we've been here before. Land can be managed to attract certain kinds of birds to your yard. I prefer bluebirds or doves to crows. In A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC, Leopold gets into the various choices land owners make when they manage their property.
BTW, I did a parody of Elton's CIRCLE OF LIFE, not about environmentalism, but about local politicans. I called it THE CIRCLE OF STRIFE. I did, however, do a parody of that goofy Disney Pocahotis (sp?) song COLORS OF THE WIND. I had someone answer each of her rhetorical questions. Maybe I can find it. It started with:
Do you think you own the land you walk on?
Yes, as a matter of fact I really do.
JeffD said:
Pretty broad statement, even for you Jeff, the champion of the macro view. By your standards, the punks who killed the animals at the zoo should get off free; not guilty. By your standards they should only be charged because they killed the zoo owners property.
J
JeffD
Guest
There you go again.
Animals don't have rights. This is not the same as saying we have the right to abuse them. Put it in context, Bob. When is the last time you saw a delegation of snakes show up at a public meeting (well, maybe YOU have)? :wink: The Bill of Rights does not apply to snakes. Humans don't have to have a snake's permission to build a road through it's habitat. Of course, some people think we do. Because animals can't participate in deciding public issues, there are those who take it upon themselves to represent them. They talk to the animals and know what they are thinking. If they can't get a hold of a live one, they just watch cartoons to divine what the animals want.
The problem with dictators and other tyrants is that they treat humans like animals. I'm not talking about torture, etc, but doing things like not giving them a voice in government and taking private property, etc. without due process. Many years ago a guy came up here from the south who believed that blacks do not have the same rights and whites. He believed that blacks should be treated kindly, the same way one would take care of a dog. Of course he came to believe that that line of thinking was wrong. The point is that there is a difference between humans and animals.
The punks who clubbed the animals at the zoo to death were misusing mistreating them. It is right to condemn such actions, but the animals don't have rights. Stopping a project just because some snakes were spotted in the general area does not abridge due process or free speech, as these rights are not extended to the animal kingdom.
Animals don't have rights. This is not the same as saying we have the right to abuse them. Put it in context, Bob. When is the last time you saw a delegation of snakes show up at a public meeting (well, maybe YOU have)? :wink: The Bill of Rights does not apply to snakes. Humans don't have to have a snake's permission to build a road through it's habitat. Of course, some people think we do. Because animals can't participate in deciding public issues, there are those who take it upon themselves to represent them. They talk to the animals and know what they are thinking. If they can't get a hold of a live one, they just watch cartoons to divine what the animals want.
The problem with dictators and other tyrants is that they treat humans like animals. I'm not talking about torture, etc, but doing things like not giving them a voice in government and taking private property, etc. without due process. Many years ago a guy came up here from the south who believed that blacks do not have the same rights and whites. He believed that blacks should be treated kindly, the same way one would take care of a dog. Of course he came to believe that that line of thinking was wrong. The point is that there is a difference between humans and animals.
The punks who clubbed the animals at the zoo to death were misusing mistreating them. It is right to condemn such actions, but the animals don't have rights. Stopping a project just because some snakes were spotted in the general area does not abridge due process or free speech, as these rights are not extended to the animal kingdom.
As an enlightened society, we should give "rights" to animals. But that surely won't happen in our lifetime.
B
bach2yoga
Guest
Jeff,
I am curious, very much so, as to what exactly, in your opinion, gives us as humans the right to declare that an animal does not have rights?
Is it the fact that they have no organized government and as such cannot stick up for themselves and declare their own bill of rights? Not sure...it seems to me that makes it all the more of a reason to protect them, the fact that they are unable to protect themselves in any organized manner from the largest threat to the environment--man. Protecting those that cannot protect themselves just seems like the right thing to do to me. With a view of realism, that it will be necessary to eat and clothe and shelter myself, but that it should be done with minimum impact, and as little waste as possible. (ok, I use too much paper...so I've fed the economy that prompted the Lee Brothers to clearcut that area... gotta work on that one. :lol: ) There is no "law" unless we make the "law". So my question is, the question further behind the fact that we make the laws is, what, from a philosophical and ethical standpoint gives us the right to determine who and what does and does not have rights, and why does that give us that right? Two part question. I'm not asking to be smart, but because I genuinely would like to understand why you feel that way.
And if you use Biblical dominion as your basis, remember even Noah was commanded to bring seven of every "clean" animal and two of every "unclean" animal. Every animal. No exceptions made for venomous snakes. It seems that even in the biblical dominion theory (which I am not a proponent of) that man was given the responsibility of caretaker. The second creation story in Genesis (which is actually older than the first one, in Genesis 1) reflects that attitude as well, in that Adam was put in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Sorry to put a religious note on that, but those are the only two reasons I could come up with for that point of view.
I used to ask my parents why they expected so much more of me than my brother or sisters, and I always got the same answer. "To whom much is given, much is required." It seems to me that the same principle applies here.
Renee
I am curious, very much so, as to what exactly, in your opinion, gives us as humans the right to declare that an animal does not have rights?
Is it the fact that they have no organized government and as such cannot stick up for themselves and declare their own bill of rights? Not sure...it seems to me that makes it all the more of a reason to protect them, the fact that they are unable to protect themselves in any organized manner from the largest threat to the environment--man. Protecting those that cannot protect themselves just seems like the right thing to do to me. With a view of realism, that it will be necessary to eat and clothe and shelter myself, but that it should be done with minimum impact, and as little waste as possible. (ok, I use too much paper...so I've fed the economy that prompted the Lee Brothers to clearcut that area... gotta work on that one. :lol: ) There is no "law" unless we make the "law". So my question is, the question further behind the fact that we make the laws is, what, from a philosophical and ethical standpoint gives us the right to determine who and what does and does not have rights, and why does that give us that right? Two part question. I'm not asking to be smart, but because I genuinely would like to understand why you feel that way.
And if you use Biblical dominion as your basis, remember even Noah was commanded to bring seven of every "clean" animal and two of every "unclean" animal. Every animal. No exceptions made for venomous snakes. It seems that even in the biblical dominion theory (which I am not a proponent of) that man was given the responsibility of caretaker. The second creation story in Genesis (which is actually older than the first one, in Genesis 1) reflects that attitude as well, in that Adam was put in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Sorry to put a religious note on that, but those are the only two reasons I could come up with for that point of view.
I used to ask my parents why they expected so much more of me than my brother or sisters, and I always got the same answer. "To whom much is given, much is required." It seems to me that the same principle applies here.
Renee
[/i]JeffD said:
JeffD said:
Alright, I will. Thank you for the opportunity.
You took Dolly our of her world into your family, and by doing that, you made an agreement with her and yourself to protect her from harm, to care for her. Now lets say you were walking down the street with Dolly, and I came along and started kicking Dolly for no reason. After about the third kick, Dolly looks up to you with an imploring, pleading look on her face. She is looking to you for help and protection.
Does she have a right to do that, to look to you for protection?
J
JeffD
Guest
bruset said:
I think they've gotten to you, Ben.
Koolaide Koolaide, tastes great
Let me have some, can't wait
Yes, Renee, we are caretakers and are responsible to be good stewards of the earth. And, as I've pointed out ad infinitum ad naseum, there are apecial places for wildlife management. This is an example of good stewardship. But we can determine the time and place where animals live. Taking the idea of animal rights to its logical conclusion, I don't have a right to kill a housefly that gets into my house. The other day Lisa found a swarm of ants coming out a crack in the floor between the bathroom and the laundryroom. I heavily sprayed the area with pestiside. The ants probably colonized my property long before anyone moved in. Wouldn't you say that I just violated their rights?
Back to the compairison of not going forth with a housing project because a snake or two was spotted in the area to people who move into an area because they don't like a pig farm: The snakes can find somewhere else to go,, and these accomodations were made, vis a vis a fence to channel them elsewhere. We can't just demand that the pig farmer move out. He has rights.
The point is that, having dominion over the earth, humans are the ones to make decisions. There is a school of thought that says that we are intruders on the earth, and that the earth does not belong to us but we belong to the earth. We belong to the earth? An inanimate object? :crazy: So we're supposed to put the earth and its animals first. This database that allegedly lists where certain animals might or could live, which some people want to others to check before proceeding (or even after the fact) on a human endevor. In essence, human rights must yield to that of the animal kingdom. Animals then should decide where people live and not vice versa. This is the backwards thinking of the environmental extremists, who are driving this nutty policy.
This is anologous to the idea of just letting the forest alone, letting nature take it's course through natural fires. Cutting trees followed by controlled burns not only does the same job nature does, but improves on it. Dr. Emile Divito was quoted as saying that when foresters employ silvicultural (scientific, selective tree cutting) practices and controlled burns, they are creating a wasteland. The opposite is true. If you walk the old railroad tracks from High Crossing towards the Basto River Railroad Bridge, you'll see where there was a naturally occurring forest fire -- countless charred, dead trees, and charred logs and pieces of trees littering the forest floor. It looks like crap. When the Forest Service thins and area and does a controlled burn in the winter, the forest is clean and beauful and there is only a temporary black coating on the forest floor. I'm willing to bet that that area I saw last year still looks crappy.
Now humans don't always make the best decisions as master of the plantation, so to speak. But that doesn't mean that the believe that the idea that we are in charge is wrong. And, to continue the plantation analogy, animals have the same status of slaves. Not that they should be mistreated, but that master is the boss. The problem with slavery, even if the master takes good care of his slaves, is that the slaves were human beings, not animals. Oh, and this brings me to PETA, the animal rights folks. They have a problem with an elephant just being in a circus, even if the elephant is cared for properly. To them, having an elephant in a circus is interiently evil. They even tried to enter a display of an elephant crying because it was enslaved in the circus.
Again, I think overdeveloping an area is a bad idea. But to invoke the endangered species act is not the answer. This precedent has ramifications. It's already been used to keep loggers from cutting trees. The arguement was that by cutting the trees the loggers might disturb a timber rattler's love life. :crazy:
Enlightened society? More like Brave New World. Or New Age World.
J
JeffD
Guest
BobM said:
Actually, Dolly wouldn't be looking to me for help after the first kick; I'd be kicking you after the first one. I think I answered that question in the post I was working on after you posted, if not in a previous post. But anyway, I'll say that animals not having rights, in the sense of civil, constitutional rights that humans have doesn't mean that I don't have a responsibility to protect and care for Dolly
And yes, we chose to have Dolly live with us. We do not choose to have snakes, mosquitos, houseflys, crows, etc. live with us. That is a personal, human choice. If I were a farmer and crows or any other varmit was destroying my crops, I would shoot it. And I shouldn't be stopped from planting a garden on a spot that could be timber rattler habitat, or throwing some dirt on a puddle because it may be a wetland stopover for some migrant bird.
You keep saying this every time I say something that remotely agrees with what Bob or Renee say. At least I think that's when you say it - the haze from the incense and the reflection from the giant quartz crystal that I wear around my neck sort of make it hard to read in my computer room. I'm glad you think so highly of me that I can't form my own opinions. That says a lot.
I like Kool-Aid, but prefer Hawiian Punch. Mountain Dew Code Red is also very Kool-Aid-ish and has the bonus of being carbonated.
When I speak about animals having rights, I mean that they have rights to be protected from harm from humans. Not once have I said that I believe animals to be "equals" to humans. I eat meat and don't feel guilty. However the animals that are used in the meat industry deserve to have the best life possible while they are alive (eg: not kept in small pens, but kept out in the open and fed grains.) When it's time to slaughter them, they should be killed in a painless and humane way - not led down a narrow walkway where people on either side bludgeon them to death.
Do I think that a development should be stopped if there are 1 or 2 snakes found in an area? No. The developer made provisions to channel the snakes away to other areas, and honestly the snakes WILL find another place to go. As long as we don't overdevelop and keep some areas "wild" and "natural" there will be plenty of room for the critters and people.
When I find a bug or spider in my house, I do my best to bring it outside. When I find ants, however, I spray the living hell out of them. Ants, ticks, and their related kin are pretty much the only animals I have a burning hatred for.
B
bach2yoga
Guest
Hmm...how did you guys know I use incense and crystals? Even carry one in my pocket. You know, instead of a rabbit's foot. Cuz I wouldn't want to hurt a bunny. :bounce: Besides, I don't believe in luck, I believe in karma. (oh boy, pull up your pant legs, it's getting deep in here!) (you do know I am kidding, right?) Make the Kool-aid a diet vanilla coke and I'm there! :friday:
Jeff, you never actually did answer my question about what gives us that right. Maybe you are not sure, other than it is just your opinion? :wink:
BTW, we need to hammer down details for June 21. :argue2: oops. not that way!
Renee
Jeff, you never actually did answer my question about what gives us that right. Maybe you are not sure, other than it is just your opinion? :wink:
BTW, we need to hammer down details for June 21. :argue2: oops. not that way!
Renee
J
JeffD
Guest
I thought I did answer your question, Renee, about WHAT gives us the right. I believe it is a self evident truth, but backed up by pragmatism. That is that we can see that humans are the ones who have dominion. You said yourself, that more is expected of us. Yes, we are a higher creature. I agree with the Western Judeo Christain tradition that we were given dominion over the earth. I read a book years ago that said that extremist environmentalism was a result of the abandonment of the idea that humans were a special creation, apart from the animals, etc. Of course, the bastarization of the idea of dominion is bad too. Someone I debated environmental issues with on another site said that the idea of dominion was the cause of environmental problems, and cited former Interior Secretary James Watt as an example. I'm not so sure about Watt. I used to think he wasn't good on environmental issues, and even joked about him. Once, when I worked seasonally on a trail maintenance crew for the U.S. Forest Service, I joked that we made a trail so wide that James Watt would even approve of it. Also, a minister in New Mexico once implied that Watt was not being a good steward of the environment. He said that Watt subscribed to a certain view of esotology (the end times), which, by fiat, teaches that you don't have to act responsibly in certain areas. I don't remember exactly what he said, but that was sort of what he said. Well, I guess one bad appointment out of many isn't too bad, especially compaired to a later President, who, as Mr. Buckley once said, [sic] "has a tendency to appoint people who have problems."
I think this habitat and other map may be just a tool for that former White House lawyer to use for his own self serviing purposes.
Back to the the special creature idea. When I was on a delivery in the historical section of Philadelphia, as we passed by a horse-and-carriage, a 20-year old who was with me said that one time when he was driving past the carriages with a friend, the friend started yelling at the horse-and-buggy driver that he should do that to the horse. "How would you like to have to pull a carriage?!,"he screamed. The guy then told me that he believed that humans were just another form of animal, and that, basically, we evolved from them. I told him that his friend's behavior was a logical consequence of that belief. What they are teaching in the public schools thiese days? Well, even in my day.
Ben, I was just kidding you about thinking like Renee and Bob. I think you can think for yourself. I think we were quippling about semantics. Socretes stressed to define your terms before discussing something. That's the problem nowadays, with the misuse and arbitrary use of words, and also connotations of words that change, such as "wilderness." I think we are on the same page on this matter. I think on other matters, such as logging, we aren't. We definately are on roadless areas and access issues. Actually, I think I lean more towards having more roadless areas, although I don't subscribe to having too many roadless areas. I'm just finishing reading Leopold and read about roadless areas. In the beginning, one of every twelve roads was closed to access public lands. More about Leopold later.
Ok, finally, Renee, we do need to hammer down details for June 21, maybe with a railroad spike. I'll either email you or discuss it on the Get Togethers forum or both. I believe we did set a time and meeting place. Just need to remind folks about water, etc.
I think this habitat and other map may be just a tool for that former White House lawyer to use for his own self serviing purposes.
Back to the the special creature idea. When I was on a delivery in the historical section of Philadelphia, as we passed by a horse-and-carriage, a 20-year old who was with me said that one time when he was driving past the carriages with a friend, the friend started yelling at the horse-and-buggy driver that he should do that to the horse. "How would you like to have to pull a carriage?!,"he screamed. The guy then told me that he believed that humans were just another form of animal, and that, basically, we evolved from them. I told him that his friend's behavior was a logical consequence of that belief. What they are teaching in the public schools thiese days?
Well, even in my day. Ben, I was just kidding you about thinking like Renee and Bob. I think you can think for yourself. I think we were quippling about semantics. Socretes stressed to define your terms before discussing something. That's the problem nowadays, with the misuse and arbitrary use of words, and also connotations of words that change, such as "wilderness." I think we are on the same page on this matter. I think on other matters, such as logging, we aren't. We definately are on roadless areas and access issues. Actually, I think I lean more towards having more roadless areas, although I don't subscribe to having too many roadless areas. I'm just finishing reading Leopold and read about roadless areas. In the beginning, one of every twelve roads was closed to access public lands. More about Leopold later.
Ok, finally, Renee, we do need to hammer down details for June 21, maybe with a railroad spike. I'll either email you or discuss it on the Get Togethers forum or both. I believe we did set a time and meeting place. Just need to remind folks about water, etc.
B
bach2yoga
Guest
Hmm...no, still doesn't answer me. It's a self-evident truth you say. By whose standards? And of course we could take the whole concept of self-evident truth much further in the philosophical realm. There are a lot of implications in the term "self-evident truth" that change within the parameters of the world view and culture that you are a part of. Where did that self-evident truth come from? By whose authority did it originate as a truth and under what definition of truth? You say we were given dominion over the earth. This is a passive verb tense, which implies that there was a "giver" that gave man dominion. It sounds as though your viewpoint is based on our society's mores, the "folkways of central importance accepted without question and embodying the fundamental moral views of a group". (Random House)
I am quite familiar with eschatology, I spent many hours debating pre/post -trib and pre/post/a -millenial and dispensationalism with my Greek professor. I came home branded a heretic.
I translated too much Socrates and Aesops. Never have been right since! :crazy:
And as far as us evolving from other animals, that is an incorrect understanding of evolution, you are right about that.
Renee
I am quite familiar with eschatology, I spent many hours debating pre/post -trib and pre/post/a -millenial and dispensationalism with my Greek professor. I came home branded a heretic.
I translated too much Socrates and Aesops. Never have been right since! :crazy: And as far as us evolving from other animals, that is an incorrect understanding of evolution, you are right about that.
Renee
JeffD said:I thought I did answer your question, Renee, about WHAT gives us the right. I believe it is a self evident truth, but backed up by pragmatism. That is that we can see that humans are the ones who have dominion. You said yourself, that more is expected of us. Yes, we are a higher creature. I agree with the Western Judeo Christain tradition that we were given dominion over the earth. I read a book years ago that said that extremist environmentalism was a result of the abandonment of the idea that humans were a special creation, apart from the animals, etc. Of course, the bastarization of the idea of dominion is bad too. Someone I debated environmental issues with on another site said that the idea of dominion was the cause of environmental problems, and cited former Interior Secretary James Watt as an example. I'm not so sure about Watt. I used to think he wasn't good on environmental issues, and even joked about him. Once, when I worked seasonally on a trail maintenance crew for the U.S. Forest Service, I joked that we made a trail so wide that James Watt would even approve of it. Also, a minister in New Mexico once implied that Watt was not being a good steward of the environment. He said that Watt subscribed to a certain view of esotology (the end times), which, by fiat, teaches that you don't have to act responsibly in certain areas. I don't remember exactly what he said, but that was sort of what he said. Well, I guess one bad appointment out of many isn't too bad, especially compaired to a later President, who, as Mr. Buckley once said, [sic] "has a tendency to appoint people who have problems."
I think this habitat and other map may be just a tool for that former White House lawyer to use for his own self serviing purposes.
Back to the the special creature idea. When I was on a delivery in the historical section of Philadelphia, as we passed by a horse-and-carriage, a 20-year old who was with me said that one time when he was driving past the carriages with a friend, the friend started yelling at the horse-and-buggy driver that he should do that to the horse. "How would you like to have to pull a carriage?!,"he screamed. The guy then told me that he believed that humans were just another form of animal, and that, basically, we evolved from them. I told him that his friend's behavior was a logical consequence of that belief. What they are teaching in the public schools thiese days?
Ben, I was just kidding you about thinking like Renee and Bob. I think you can think for yourself. I think we were quippling about semantics. Socretes stressed to define your terms before discussing something. That's the problem nowadays, with the misuse and arbitrary use of words, and also connotations of words that change, such as "wilderness." I think we are on the same page on this matter. I think on other matters, such as logging, we aren't. We definately are on roadless areas and access issues. Actually, I think I lean more towards having more roadless areas, although I don't subscribe to having too many roadless areas. I'm just finishing reading Leopold and read about roadless areas. In the beginning, one of every twelve roads was closed to access public lands. More about Leopold later.
Ok, finally, Renee, we do need to hammer down details for June 21, maybe with a railroad spike. I'll either email you or discuss it on the Get Togethers forum or both. I believe we did set a time and meeting place. Just need to remind folks about water, etc.
Complete and total boredom!!! Sorry, I had to say that because it is true.bruset said:I wish I could make that RR hike. I'll be in precana classes all day, unfortunately.
When all said and done and the years go by you will look back and ask yourself did it do me any good, did it make me a better husband, and did it make her a better wife. I say to you that your answer will be emphatically NO. I say that from experience, but then again what do i know!
Make the best of it and you may get more from it than I did. That is my hope.
Guy
J
JeffD
Guest
OK, Renee. God gave us dominion over the earth.
And where do these people who put animals first, who act as though snakes have a deed to any property a mile away from where someone wants to build a house, and that we shouldn't build a road through the general area where snakes live derive their authority? Hummmmmm.
See, some folks think the universe begins and ends with them. And they have been proven wrong. Why should we listen to them?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams062200.asp
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2003/0529Bankrupt.htm
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2003/0603Radical.htm
And where do these people who put animals first, who act as though snakes have a deed to any property a mile away from where someone wants to build a house, and that we shouldn't build a road through the general area where snakes live derive their authority? Hummmmmm.
See, some folks think the universe begins and ends with them. And they have been proven wrong. Why should we listen to them?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams062200.asp
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2003/0529Bankrupt.htm
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/press/2003/0603Radical.htm