Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society – May 4, 2007
This is a very disturbing and controversial viewpoint that reminds me of a book by Tom Clancy from several years ago where extremists schemed to demolish the population of the planet to make it better for wildlife. I have decided to include this article only because I believe that extremism (in either direction) on this issue of humans effecting the world is typically bad. A centrist viewpoint almost always makes sense and by pointing out the radicals, rational people can disassociate themselves from the stance.
In my opinion, this column does more harm than good to the cause of responsible living with nature. Mr. Watson is a renown extremist on naturalist issues and the things that he implores have always caused widespread criticism. I believe that extremist such as this cause the rest of the world to rebel against these types of claims and dismiss the limited merit that they hold.
For the purposes of this editorial, except for the first paragraph below, I will focus on the latter half of the column where the Mr. Watson calls for aggressive changes. I encourage you to read the entire column so that he can describe to you the reasons that he is suggesting such aggressive changes in our human population and its way of living.
Of the 40,168 species that the 10,000 scientists in the IUCN assessed, one in four mammals, one in eight birds, one in three amphibians, one in three conifers, and other gymnosperms are at risk of extinction. The peril faced by other classes of organisms is less thoroughly analyzed, but fully 40 percent of the examined species of planet earth are in danger, including perhaps 51 percent of reptiles, 52 percent of insects, and 73 percent of flowering plants.
I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ďAIDS of the Earth.Ē I make no apologies for that statement.
We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.
In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities.
We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings.
We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.
Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.
All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.
We need to eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to fulfill the proper roles in nature.
We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land. We need to lower populations of domestic housecats and dogs.
We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.
We need an economic system that provides all people with educational, medical, security, and support systems without mass production and vast utilization of resources. This will only work within the context of a much smaller global population.
Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career.
Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.
Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach
It wonít be easy but then itís better than the alternative. [Editor’s note: Better for who??]
I encourage you to read this very disturbing and extremist article, if only to understand how bad it could be if we are not careful.
Technorati Tags: global-warmingTags: Bali, birds, conservation, EPA, extinction, fish, food, fossil fuel, insects, plants, scientists, solar, water, wind