Isn't that what I did back at #111? - and in reply you indicated that you had too much invested in the publishing to say any more. - You seem to be in defensive mode.
"Frankly, I would expect a person of your intelligence to be sufficiently intrigued to have done so two(sp?) instead of passing judgement on partial information."
Again, I feel that this goes back to #111, but I am not attempting to pass judgement anyway; I am trying to determine whether we are pulling in similar directions.
"Does that address your considerations?"
Let me put this in as few words as possible:
I do not believe that man has any power, or responsibility, over the survival, or lack thereof, of any living species, and I am compelled to resist with all resources available, any movement, plan, or agenda that has as it's basis the idea that we do. - Either you have similar motives, or you do not, and that was all that I was looking for. - OK?
This one first. It is a matter of historical record that humans have extirpated numerous species by various means, both direct and indirect: passenger pigeons, scrub oxen, dodo birds, various western antelope, dozens of native grasses, and pretty soon the American Elm. The recent phytopthora infestation that arrived on European rhododendrons may destroy every riparian hardwood tree species on the West Coast... Clearly we do have the power to extirpate species.
Most species extirpations were the result of direct efforts to kill them, whether for food, plumage, sport, or as pests. Are you saying that those who did the killing are not responsible for that? Further extinctions were derived incidentally by those wishing to make a product cheaper, the impact of whose business activities crossed their property lines. Are they responsible for that? If people chose to market services to the public re-establishing endangered species, do you think that this is not a legitimate business?
Lets say you own a factory and it has a sewer pipe dumping an effluent into the river. Are you accountable for that effluent when it crosses the property line? What if you destroy the value of private property with it? What if that valued property is somebody's endangered species management business?
, and I am compelled to resist with all resources available, any movement, plan, or agenda that has as it's basis the idea that we do.
You would resist the voluntary efforts to preserve these plants and animals too? (You did say "any plan.") Perhaps you mean that you would resist such a plan if it were instituted by coersion. That's fine, but why should people be compelled to abandon their use of their property by virtue of your use of yours? How do you propose to resolve such disputes without government developing an interest in managing that contest?
- Either you have similar motives, or you do not, and that was all that I was looking for. - OK?
If all you are seeking is to validate your existing opinion, please don't read my book. The fascists of the world would need you more to continue justifying their regulatory hegemony.