Posted on 03/02/2006 6:48:02 AM PST by Louis Foxwell
Abortion and environmental laws stem from the same principle, the reduction of the human species to a status of undesirable.
The laws that destroy private property, imprison nature lovers, fine farmers and hunters, and restrict access to vast tracts of wilderness are all done in the name of protecting "nature" from people. This is not simply a matter of laws that can be undone.
There are countless examples of environmental laws run amock with deadly consequences. An excellent one is the banning of DDT, considered a miracle product with profound health benefits during its use. The banning of DDT was an act of pure murderous demogoguery. Not one of the thousands of workers involved in the production of DDT was ever found to have an adverse health condition. Several of the manufacturers ate DDT by the spoonful to demonstrate that it was not a health risk. Nontheless the substance was banned.
There was never any science proving that DDT was dangerous. No such proof exists even today. DDT was banned purely for political reasons, to placate enviro Nazis. It has resulted in the death of tens of millions of children by malaria and other mosquito born diseases. None of these deaths need have occured.
The outrageous premise that falcon egg shells were thinned by DDT - a fraudulent claim - was used as adequate justification for the death of millions of children. In truth the birds had been hunted to near extinction 50 years earlier and were rebounding when the ban was instituted.
If you believe that environmental laws are merely laws that can be changed and have no lasting consequences you have not looked at the issue. Very nearly as many have died due to the dehumanizing influence of environmentalism as from abortion. All have died for the same reason, because there is a culture of death in control of our political establishment that is committed to the eradication of undesirable human beings.
In the 20th century nearly every nation embarked on a campaign to eradicate undesirables. Nearly half a billion humans were slaughtered in the 20th century in obedience to this evil philosophy. The great slaughter in China of 30 million in the name of the Great Leap Forward was exceeded by the murder of as many by a Woman's Right to Choose in the US.
Environmentalism is an evil philosophy that must be eradicated from our nation. It has no place in a society committed to human dignity and freedom.
I don't think anyone here is saying DDT should be completely banned. If used properly and at low levels it can be completely safe. Despite what selective research you may read, DDT does have health concerns. The fact is there are safer ways to control mosquito populations. Further, when was the last time we had a malaria outbreak in the US? I don't know how we survived without DDT /sarcasm.
I agree the decision to ban DDT in the US was probably emotive and political but the widespread use in agriculture was certainly problematic. DDT would not have been effective and it would have cause some environmental damage if we had continued to salt the earth with it.
I think everyone here should read and remember this!
yes that's exactly what i am saying, in most cases environments are better left alone form mankind's limited and often bungling attempts to manage tracts of national forest and countryside. Often leaving these areas alone can cause damage too, so what does that suggest?
Pretty much the entire scientific community has agreed that we do not have a grasp on the intricacies of ecosystems and their complex interdependency on flaura forna and even at the molecular level this relationship can be seen. As we do not yet fully understood these mechanisms to attempt to manage enviroment often has unexpected and often detrimental results. Such as the management of yellowstone park, or Australias furtile plains etc.
"I do not support the work of any organized environmental groups at this time. I certainly don't support PETA."
Again we are in agreement then :-)
"I believe in Father God, not Mother Earth."
Again we agree :-)
"This thread simply illustrates how the very words conservation or environmental protection bring out the ire of conservatives."
yes you are probably right there :-)
Then why are the mortality statistics so high post DDT?
Where? Malaria mortality rates? Some specifics please or I can't honestly respond.
No it's not simplist. You are being foolish to argue that a farmer cannot his job to raise crops because he is not a genetics expert.
http://www.unicef.org/health/index_malaria.html Challenges Malaria kills a child somewhere in the world every 30 seconds. It infects at least 500 million people each year, killing 1 million. Ninety per cent of those who die are in Africa, where malaria accounts for about one in five of all childhood deaths.
No you are creating a strawman we are not discussing farming we are discussing managing entire ecosystems, if you don't understand the difference you are not qualified to discuss this subject
So how are you linking this to "post DDT use?" There is no ban on DDT in Africa. Where DDT spraying is the most cost-effective method, they use and further the World Bank even funds it!!!
In fact there is no ban on DDT in the U.S. DDT has never been banned in antimalarial use. The main reason for declining use of DDT as an antimalarial has been the development of resistance. It's only been banned as an agricultural insecticide. These bans have helped to slow the development of resistance, and therefore increased the effectiveness of DDT in antimalarial use.
You should the one creating by strawman by saying that no one should be allowed to tend their small garden, nor grow their field of crops because no one could handle the entire global ecosystem by themselve.
I can't see how a Christian can be a vegetarian, or an environmentalist. Paul certainly made it clear that vegetarianism was spiritual weakness, and the totality of the dietary laws in Leviticus require a balanced diet, centering on the consumption of meat. Environmentalism is the forbidden worship of the creation. All of the kings of Israel were ordered to cut down the 'groves' that the earth worshipers planted, and those that disobeyed were not kings for long.
That is your opinion and a pretty ridiculous one at that. Have a nice weekend.
This thread simply illustrates how the very words conservation or environmental protection bring out the ire of conservatives.
___________________________
You need to understand that there is a difference between conservation and environmentalism. They are not the same.
Conservation protects the natural world for its use as a resource to human life.
Environmentalism is an extremist philosophy that believes humans should be restricted from using natural resources.
From what you have said you are a conservationist. An environmentalist would never grant God the authority to give life. According to environmental philosophy you are over quota for children and should not be allowed to have more.
For starters why not look at ECOTOX and review DDT Saves Lives
____________________-
I checked your references. The freep link is an assortment of opinions about the subject, not particularly illuminating.
The EPA site does not list DDT.
So what is your point?
First off, I didn't write the paragraph (chanticleer). I do understand the difference between environmentalists and conservationists. Sadly, I don't think the majority of the public nor at FR can differentiate between the 2 (ala Rush). Anyone who has concern for the environment is automatically labeled a wacko.
Second your whole diatribe about how this "ban" (its certainly not banned for malaria control) of DDT is responsible for "10's of millions of children" is absurd and irresponsible. See my other comments.
I agree the decision to ban DDT in the US was probably emotive and political but the widespread use in agriculture was certainly problematic. DDT would not have been effective and it would have cause some environmental damage if we had continued to salt the earth with it.
_________________________
Sez you.
This is just the sort of nonthinking reaction that Environmentalism is based on. Your comments are a case in point.
Where? Malaria mortality rates? Some specifics please or I can't honestly respond.
___________________
Checking GOOGLE - Malaria in Africa, the first entry is:
Africa Fighting Malaria
According to the World Health Organization, malaria is on the rise again, taking a life every thirty seconds of every minute of every day around the world.
www.fightingmalaria.org/ - 57k - Mar 1, 2006 -
So how are you linking this to "post DDT use?" There is no ban on DDT in Africa. Where DDT spraying is the most cost-effective method, they use and further the World Bank even funds it!!!
_______________________-
Nonsense. DDT is banned around the world. It has been approved preliminarily in extremely restrictive use in the homes of rural people. Restrictions on manufacturing, however, preclude even this limited use. There is no demonstrated evidence of resistance.
You continue to blow smoke.
Oh, it most certainly does. Perhaps you should try and figure out what DDT is first, lol.
So what is your point
well let's review what you said.
Wrong again and again and again and again. It must be difficult to never be right. DDT does not harm invertebrates. There are no studies showing resistance to DDT. It IS a wonder pesticide. Saying it ain't so does not mean it ain't so.
There is a TON of research that refutes your above statements. When you figure out what DDT is and learn how to operate a database query, you will see that DDT can in fact harm inverts. But I guess me saying so with documentation means nothing while you saying it IS a wonder pesticide is the definitive answer. Ignorance is bliss i suppose.
Unreal... that is honestly all i can say. you'd think someone with access to a computer could figure out there is no ban on DDT for use in fighting malaria. Why not check out this...
there is no ban on DDT Malaria Foundation International
Trends in malaria morbidity and mortality in Sri Lanka.
DT and Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An. subpictus has been found resistant. Figure 2 in their paper shows that since 2000, malaria incidence has been reduced by a factor of 100 without any use of DDT. Figures 3 and 4 show that Galle has been free of malaria for years.
I don't know why i even waste my time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.