Not exactly. Looking at this and your Mt. St. Helens example, subsequent to the event, the natural areas affected were allowed to recover. Recovery takes time. When a forest gets cut down for a housing development, there isn't a lot of recovery possible for the forest. Is that correct or not?
“Not exactly. Looking at this and your Mt. St. Helens example, subsequent to the event, the ‘natural’ areas affected were allowed to recover.”
This is where I have a lot of trouble with so-called envirnmentalists - it’s their dichotomy of man-made vs natural, as though man is not part of nature. To the rabid environmentalists a meteor hitting the earth tomorrow and wiping out our civilization and half the species would be perfectly fine (maybe even welcome if it got rid of homo sapiens) because it is “natural”. Man daming a river to provide fresh water, is evil, because, in their self-loathing way, man is evil..
The other thing that gets me about environmentalists is that they come off as unselfish and holier than thou vis-a-vis the neanderthal, selfish, freedom-loving conservative, and I have to say they have been very successful at selling that idea and “guilting” the majority of people into “saving the planet” in a myriad ways from not drilling in ANWR, to taking 2 minute showers, to reusing towels and sheets at motels.
They’ve been able to do this because they bamboozeled the masses into thinking that what they’re demanding is for the good of the planet not for themselves. So they have this aura of unselfishely sacrificing for the sake of mother earth.
There are several points to be made here.
1. The earth could care less if it was oblitered by a meteor tomorrow and became just another asteroid belt around the solar system, let alone if the corals disappeared. Mother Earth, as much as they try to personify it, HAS NO FEELINGS NOR DOES IT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU AND ME, THE SPOTTED OWL, AND THE CORALS!!
2. So if mother earth doesn’t care what happens to it who are the environmentalists protecting with their so-called unselfish demands. Let’s take for example ANWR. Why are they against drilling there? After their claim that they were protecting the caribou or the polar bear was totally debunked, they were left with safeguarding “pristine grounds” - i.e. even though it’s an icy desert, they wanted to conserve the pristininess of the place. Why? Because they might want to go there someday and be able to see this “pristine” state. So, bottom line, the reason they want us to pay the arabs additional billions each year rather than drill in our own reserves is for THEIR selfish motive of wanting to play tourist someday and take a trip there!!!
And if you ask similar questions on any of their demands you end up at the same point, ie they want what they want for their SELFISH reasons, just like the rest of us! THEY ARE NOT MORALLY SUPERIOR. So we shouldn’t be guilted into giving in to them because WE are being selfish. Take for example their desire to want to tear down the Hetch Hetchy dam. Why do they want to do that? Because they like to return it to a running river. Why? Because they like running rivers better than lakes. That’s it! That’s the only reason. They’ll confuse you with BS like restoring the thing to nature like it once was (again man made change is bad) as though that is preferable. I like rivers too, and I like lakes as well, plus it provides fresh water for the bay area, flood control, etc, etc. Lots of benefits! Yet they get up on their soap boxes and utter the word “nature” and all the politician genuflect at the altar of “nature”, when in fact when you boil it down to its essence, all they’re saying is that they prefer a river to a lake there simply because that’s what they like. The fact that millions of others like the lake just fine doesn’t interest them, and like little spoiled kids they march and protest until the ball-less politicians surrender.
Now I’m not saying that the position taken by environmentalists are all bad. What I’m complaining against is their tactics AND the fact that the masses have bought their manupulative tactics (that they are the unselfish ones out to save mother earth) hook, line and sinker and that is why the environazis have taken over. These issues like all the other should be argued not as it is now (a “morally superior” elitist group dictating to the world the “right and wrong”) but rather equally moral groups fighting for their self interests. (my preference for a lake over a river is not morally inferior to someone elses preference for a river over a lake).
Moreover, the environazis have found great allies on the left, since both are elitist and believe in a strong central government to dictate people’s behavior. That is why so often you see the Reds and the Greens marching together.
Unless the masses wake up soon, and see the greens for what they really are (selfish, spoiled, elitist, and more than anything else, anti-freedom), we’ll be doomed to a long life of soft-stalinism.
Sorry for the long rant - but I just had to get it out.