Monday, August 24, 2009

Human Needs


If there's one thing our troubled nation needs more than ever, it's a newspaper editorialist who's willing to take a principled stand for human needs.

And I'm not talking about clean air and water, or food, or education, or affordable healthcare, or the right to marry the person you love. I'm talking about real human needs, like building parking lots, sneering at science, conflating vulgar-libertarian claptrap with the Word of God, elevating willfully ignorant contempt for nature to a moral imperative, and turning environmental management decisions over to the extraction industries.

The first thing you need to understand is that things you've never heard of don't matter.

Ever hear of the Yellowstone sand verbena? Probably not, since the only place this plant is currently known to grow in North America is a beach in the Wyoming national park bearing that name.
Know how you can tell valuable things from worthless things? Valuable things become more valuable as they become more scarce.

Consider this: If Yellowstone sand verbena were of any use to anybody, people would be growing it on purpose and selling it. Since they're not, it's pretty clear that it does not meet human needs, and probably never will. (Unless it turns out to cure some disease or something, but what are the odds of that?)

And no, the desire to look at Yellowstone sand verbana doesn't count as a human need. On the contrary, it's an affectation. And not the good kind, like smoking a cigar while wearing a bowtie.
How about the meltwater lednian stonefly that is only found in Glacier National Park in Montana? That one will be gone by 2030, thanks to global warming — assuming global warming is a reality, as claimed by some scientists. Or, it may be frozen by the new little ice age predicted by other scientists.
If these educated fools had the sense to cast aside their astrolabes and alembics, and consider the world in the hard astringent light of Oeconomics, they'd know that both of these outcomes are a) impossible (or at least unlikely); and b) inconsequential.

People are fretting over bugs and weeds that can only be found in Montana's national parks. The conclusion is inescapable:
[S]uch policies will “essentially sequester large swaths of private property from all use for years.”
Which would be bad enough. But the more serious problem is that they are guided by "a fundamentally unbalanced view of the proper relationship between man and nature." These policies emanate from some topsy-turvy dreamworld in which human avarice is constrained by intangibles like humility, and science, and law, and...and a sense of personal responsibility, instead of being allowed to trample everything in its path.

And for what? Here's a perfect example of how we're coddling these dime-a-dozen parasites, instead of forcing 'em to shift for themselves as God intended.
Last summer, Bureau of Land Management officials lifted environmental restrictions designed to protect one variety of sage grouse — aka “prairie chickens” — from seeing or hearing oil or natural gas wells. But, as The Examiner then predicted, environmentalists have since sued, seeking federal court orders directing reclassification of other prairie chicken varieties as endangered species.
"Sage grouse," indeed. This reminds me of the ginned-up controversy surrounding the "marbled murrelet," which despite its five-dollar name is basically nothing more than a common seagull.

Besides, if I have to hear a garbage truck every week at 6 AM, why the hell shouldn't a chicken have to hear the occasional oil well? If they don't like it, let them roost behind the moon, as the old song says.

Though these objections to conservation are unanswerable, they may seem somewhat abstract to people who are busy working, and shopping, and watching TV, and disrupting town-hall healthcare meetings in order to protect Granny and Grampy from liberal-fascist Selektion.

How will protecting useless, redundant species ruin your life, you ask? Get a load of this:
Environmental law that puts more emphasis on forever preserving the current condition of nature also shortchanges America’s ability to provide housing for a growing population. As Hewitt explains, “The proposed Clean Water Restoration Act would vastly expand federal control with private property and greatly complicate and increase the cost of bringing new homes to the market.”

Since housing is a key engine of employment and economic growth, hobbling this essential industry doesn’t just deny people shelter, it also prevents the creation of millions of needed new jobs.
It's infuriating, isn't it? The nation could be in the midst of a well-nigh unstoppable housing boom at this very moment, if it weren't for the sage grouse's interference with oil and gas leasing, and the little-known weeds and bugs that are cluttering up Montana's national parks.
These are just some of the reasons America needs a new national discussion of which is more important, the needs of the sage grouse or those of the people with whom such creatures share the natural world.
Sounds reasonable to me. Strictly in the interests of balance, and fairness, and equity, and impartiality, and stuff like that, I say the decision should be made by people who stand to benefit financially from throwing ESA protections out the window.

Because the plain fact is, we've been ruled by the sage grouse for far too long. It's time we cast its hateful yoke from our shoulders, and started the great work of catering to human needs. As Frederick Douglass said, in a remarkably similar situation, "There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him."

(Photo by Jeff Brouws.)

5 comments:

Jazzbumpa said...

I see that somebody in comments at the SFE has already linked to this post.

These are just some of the reasons America needs a new national discussion of which is more important, the needs of the sage grouse or those of the people with whom such creatures share the natural world.

I keep saying the four pillars of conservative mental process are ignorance, prejudice, magical thinking and false choice. here is an example of the latter.

What the anonymous editorialist fails to mention is that the parks eponymous glaciers are disappearing. they now are no more than a third of what they were in 1850, and have shrunk dramatically in my life time. (granted, I'm old -- but, still.)

That one will be gone by 2030, thanks to global warming — assuming global warming is a reality, as claimed by some scientists. Or, it may be frozen by the new little ice age predicted by other scientists.

It's pretty early in the morning for truly critical thinking, but the writer might have managed to capture all 4 here: ignorance - check; prejudice - check; magical thinking - only maybe; false choice - sure looks like it. No extra charge for the snark. What the hell do they think is making millennia-old glaciers disappear? Sun spots?!? Campers with hare dryers?!?

It's true I've never heard of the Yellowstone sand verbena. But maybe the snowshoe hare has. Maybe there's an ecological interrelationship there that can affect the Canadian Lynx. Ahhh - but what has a lynx ever done for me? And besides - who cares about the Canucks. They're pinko commies with Government sponsored health care.

It struck me a long time ago that there is a fundamental disconnect in someone's psyche when conservatives are not conservators.

Now, I must go hug a squid.

WV: nomen - Ancient Greek Cyclops blinders.

grouchomarxist said...

"[H]are dryer"? Wasn't that the title of a Bugs Bunny cartoon? (Ok, no it wasn't, but it should have been: those guys used just about every other imaginable pun on "hare" and "rabbit".)

I'd say Jazzbumpa's "four pillars" neatly summarizes the essentials of this kind of Nuke-the-Whales boilerplate.

And wasn't that "some scientists/other scientists" construction just special? Yeah, those wacky eggheads just never can make up their minds!

Jazzbumpa said...

Groucho -

Yeah. that article is just all kinds of wrong. you could get writer's cramp deconstructing it.

But that is how these bastards work. Change the subject, lie, distort, then change the subject again.

An honest person has to work three times as hard a the liar.

Phila said...

Yeah, those wacky eggheads just never can make up their minds!

What's needed is someone with good gut instincts, who's not afraid to be decisive.

I wonder if George W. Bush is busy?

Anonymous said...

酒店打工

酒店兼職

台北酒店

打工兼差

酒店工作

酒店經紀

禮服店

酒店兼差

酒店上班

酒店PT

酒店