Shrub wants to gut Endangered Species Act

Originally posted by dadudemon

I don't see in the near future, little doggies becoming extinct. As long as there's a demand for cute little puppies...

I do see continued extinctions due to human expansion and development. Instead of altering or loosening the interpretation of Endangered Species Act, maybe we should look at ways for improving our expansion? Is not like we don't have the know-how. In fact, doesn't it cost less, in the long run, to build those ultra efficient buildings with the materials that are less toxic to the environment?

As I stated earlier, the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people. And yes, ultra efficient buildings sound nice, but the endangered species act is not really a problem for billionaires that can afford fancy new technology (even if it might be cheaper in the long run). Also, do you have any ****ing clue what you are talking about? Efficient buildings don't really have shit to do with the act. You seem to try to make it about a general eco topic, while it is only about the particular topic. Stop that, maybe?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Gay.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I stated earlier, the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people. And yes, ultra efficient buildings sound nice, but the endangered species act is not really a problem for billionaires that can afford fancy new technology (even if it might be cheaper in the long run). Also, do you have any ****ing clue what you are talking about? Efficient buildings don't really have shit to do with the act. You seem to try to make it about a general eco topic, while it is only about the particular topic. Stop that, maybe?

I'm sorry you can't make the connection between clean and efficient buildings and less of an impact on "nature". It may come to you one day.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It shouldn't intervene in anything, cause it shouldn't exist.

What kind of world do you think we'd have without government.

One where there's absolutely no individual rights. One where even people's lives would be viewed as commodities. One where corporations would have absolute power (though it's becoming that way anyway).

You believe in a Libertarian utopian fairy tale.

Humans are hiearchical and someone will always be in charge and restrict the freedoms of others. As imperfect as it is, government is far preferable to the alternative.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I'm sorry you can't make the connection between clean and efficient buildings and less of an impact on "nature". It may come to you one day.

Quite contrary to what I said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Quite contrary to what I said.

So, my friend, do tell what this discussion is really about. I'm too stupid to read the article posted, and I'm also too stupid to realize the implications of a relaxtion on the Endangered Species Act.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I stated earlier, the problem with the endangered species act is that it is harmful to real human people.?

Really? How exactly is that? The more species that go extinct the more unhealthy the earth is. These species evolved over the ages to form a balanced world. The more species that are out there indicate a healthy vibrant world that in the end is better for every one and everything....including humans.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
What kind of world do you think we'd have without government.

At the moment? A pretty chaotic one, thanks to government propaganda...potentially? A very, very great one.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
One where there's absolutely no individual rights. One where even people's lives would be viewed as commodities. One where corporations would have absolute power (though it's becoming that way anyway).

Nah, that would probably actually be less bad as it is now, with the government being the little ***** of corporations already.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
You believe in a Libertarian utopian fairy tale.

Meh, you reject it on the grounds of being a corporate dystopia and rather prefer the corporate dystopia you already have.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Humans are hiearchical and someone will always be in charge and restrict the freedoms of others. As imperfect as it is, government is far preferable to the alternative.

Oh, you fully convinced me, I never heard that "argument" before, in fact, I didn't give it any thought at all...heureka, I am cured.

Can someone give me a reason for this? It doesn't seem to have a real purpose.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, my friend, do tell what this discussion is really about. I'm too stupid to read the article posted, and I'm also too stupid to realize the implications of a relaxtion on the Endangered Species Act.

No, you are talking about general environment issues. They are off-topic.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Really? How exactly is that? The more species that go extinct the more unhealthy the earth is. These species evolved over the ages to form a balanced world. The more species that are out there indicate a healthy vibrant world that in the end is better for every one and everything....including humans.

Mostly through the extreme loss in value of a property when an "endangered" species is found on it. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone can afford to just buy the next land and built on it instead.

Here something from Wikipedia:

An oft cited anecdote is the red-cockaded woodpecker which nests in trees that are at least 80 years old. Ben Cone is a tree farmer in North Carolina who owns 7,200 acres (29 km²) of southern pines. In 1991, the federal government forced him to pay a biologist $8,000 to look for red cockaded woodpeckers on his land[7]. After they were found, the government forced him to set aside 1,560 acres (6.3 km²) of his land in order to protect the woodpecker habitat. This cost him an additional $1.8 million. The government did not compensate him for his losses. Originally, his family had allowed the trees to grow for 80 to 100 years before harvesting them. In order to prevent any further financial losses, Cone switched the rest of his acreage to a rotation of only 30 to 40 years, so it would no longer be a suitable habitat to the woodpecker. [8] Randal O'Toole, a libertarian economist and public policy analyst who studied this case, stated, "Cone was given no incentive to protect the bird... When landowners face stiff penalties for harboring endangered species, they minimize suitable habitat... The law creates incentives to destroy wildlife."

As I said, just watch the Penn and Teller episode, they make some valid points.

Besides, it's also just a way of giving the government more power again. Do we really need the government to be more powerful to sell us out more efficiently to the highest bidder?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you are talking about general environment issues. They are off-topic.

I understand that that is your point. I'm telling you that you aren't acknowledging HOW these species become endangered. (I said "acknowledging" because I'm fairly sure you know.)

Do you honestly not know how more energy efficent buildings built with less toxic materials help reduce the decay of the numbers in many different species affected by human development?

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
What kind of world do you think we'd have without government.

what kind of world exists with government?

oh wait, this is an intro for you to tell us what you think the world would be like without government. What a clever rhetorical device 🙂

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
One where there's absolutely no individual rights. One where even people's lives would be viewed as commodities. One where corporations would have absolute power (though it's becoming that way anyway).

I'm sorry, which government is it that is preventing corporate consolidation of power or that is truely interested in preserving individual rights?

NGOs by and large are the groups that do this... and they are normally grass roots organizations, and even larger ones still show the ethos of people working together without gvt intervention.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
You believe in a Libertarian utopian fairy tale.

You have a deluded view of what the role of government in society is

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Humans are hiearchical and someone will always be in charge and restrict the freedoms of others.

please to elaborate, my brain not fast for you

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
As imperfect as it is, government is far preferable to the alternative.

yes, when the only alternative you propose is a nonsensical version of society nobody is suggesting, it is very easy to make whatever you like look really nice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand that that is your point. I'm telling you that you aren't acknowledging HOW these species become endangered. (I said "acknowledging" because I'm fairly sure you know.)

Do you honestly not know how more energy efficent buildings built with less toxic materials help reduce the decay of the numbers in many different species affected by human development?

Could you please just stop addressing me when unwilling to discuss the issue. As I told you, it's not about environmental issues in general (which, as you correctly pointed out, are the reason for why species get endangered), but instead about the US Law that tries to deal with the issue. I am sure there is some Eco Love Thread where you can state your stuff, and we can all happily agree there, but if you need to reply to me at all times, can you at least focus on what I am talking about instead of pretending that the broader issue that you talk about is also what I am referring to?

And could you stop implying things about my post that aren't stated or meant at all? Thanks.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
The more species that are out there indicate a healthy vibrant world

that would indicate that the world is at one of its healthiest points as biodiversity is higher now than at, iirc, any point in history.

Politics and governments fail miserably. And yet, without them, we'd be in a worst position. It's hopeless. I'll just go and live in a tropical brasilian tribe and be free of all this.

Originally posted by Mandos
Politics and governments fail miserably. And yet, without them, we'd be in a worst position. It's hopeless. I'll just go and live in a tropical brasilian tribe and be free of all this.

Good luck with that.

yet another topic dragged into irrelevance and destroyed by dadouchebag.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Could you please just stop addressing me when unwilling to discuss the issue. As I told you, it's not about environmental issues in general (which, as you correctly pointed out, are the reason for why species get endangered), but instead about the US Law that tries to deal with the issue. I am sure there is some Eco Love Thread where you can state your stuff, and we can all happily agree there, but if you need to reply to me at all times, can you at least focus on what I am talking about instead of pretending that the broader issue that you talk about is also what I am referring to?

And could you stop implying things about my post that aren't stated or meant at all? Thanks.

Great. Fine and dandy.

But you can't pass off my post as off topic because you wanted to argue about something that wasn't there to argue about, again.

By the way, environmentally friendly buildings are far from the only example. You do realize that, right?

When we talk about the endangered species act, were are talking about rules, restrictions, guidelines, etc. that must be adhered to before, during, and/or after human operations can be carried out or there could be penalties. It can include direct interaction with the animals listed or just simply a type development of land. If we talk about the relaxation of those items, what does that mean? Don't you think it would be easier to get around the ESA if all development was eco friendly?

Which brings me back to my point.

"Instead of altering or loosening the interpretation of Endangered Species Act, maybe we should look at ways for improving our expansion?"

I disagree with what the government wants to do. I think they are taking this in the wrong direction. I think they should update the act with MORE requirements and higher building standards as it relates to the safety of ecosystems.

Originally posted by Schecter
yet another topic dragged into irrelevance and destroyed by dadouchebag.

Reported.

Originally posted by dadudemon
blah blah blah

Great contribution again, ddm, so, what do you think of the problems with the current Act?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Great contribution again, ddm, so, what do you think of the problems with the current Act?

You mean the alterations being propsed to the current act?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean the alterations being propsed to the current act?