Reply #19: Oh, okay, Dr. Bill ... [View All]

Listen to Dr. Bill Wattenburg (KGO810AM), much, Granny?

If you don't, you should. You sound like YOU ARE Dr. Bill is the truth.

But, here's a newsflash, Dr. Bill, in case you missed it somehow:

It is the existence of people with 'radical' environmentalist views that gives us 'environmentally-conscious' our leverage to make progress in ANY of the more humble 'middle ground' issues.

What do I mean when I say this? Well, an good illustration of this phenomenon would be to look across the aisle at our freeper friends. Observe the ways in which the right-wing has succeeding in pushing the political dialogue and 'middle-ground' in this country FAR FAR over to the Right, such that positions which only 30 years ago we used to consider 'moderate' are now (fairly successfully) being painted as being 'far-left'.

Do you think that the Right would have EVER been able to push the accepted definition of 'moderate' so far to the Right if it were not for the existence of pretty massive numbers of right-wing extremists?

Hell no. NEVER have happened. They NEED their radicals to push the scope of 'arguable viewpoints' as far to the Right as possible. That way, when it's time to compromise with the Left on some issue that's of import to them, they can make it at a place on the spectrum that is still in the realm of the 'acceptable' for the bulk of their adherents.

Take their little fight against legal abortion for example. Although the majority of pro-lifers would say they don't subscribe to the notion of shooting abortion doctors as a way to 'save the babies', the existence of people who DO allows them to argue that 'the middle', a point at which they are willing to compromise when it's called for, is a position that is much further to 'the right' than than they would otherwise be able to claim were it not for the 'whackos' carving out their pseudo-viable position at the far far far right.

Likewise, progress on the environmental protection front (like, oh, protecting our rivers from toxic sludge, getting emissions devices on our cars, stopping the clear-cutting of Redwoods, stopping whaling, etc) over the years has taken place to a large extent because of the existence of large numbers of the eco-wackos that you so despise. We NEED these die-hard types in order to push the overall debate in the direction that we want it to go, to make it look like we're compromising when we're actually doing so at a spot on the spectrum that's acceptable to OUR rank-and-file when that time comes.

I shudder to contemplate what our environment would look like if the farthest to 'the left' ANYone was was where YOU are at. In that case, the middle ground at which we'd have to compromise with big business would be a place that's truly frightening. I'm sorry, but WE NEED THE ECO-WHACKOS, dearie.

That said, I agree that many extremist environmentalist's positions ARE annoying, esp. if their position on something is contrary to accepted science. But I don't think anyone is actually AGAINST 'sound forest management policies'. The problem is in defining what is 'sound'. Before humans started using and wrecking the environment, forests were able to 'manage' themselves for hundreds of millions of years, were they not? It is certainly REASONABLE to propose that the possibility exists that the best 'forest management' policy in certain areas would be to simply leave them the fuck alone for the next 1000 years or so.

At a minimum we'd disallow all unnatural or commercial human activities (hiking, camping, small-scale fishing, perhaps bike or horseback riding in some areas would constitute 'natural activities' in my book) in the few remaining natural, functioning ecosystems we have left in the world. In fact, for all we know, doing so MIGHT just be the only hope we have to keep the planet capable of supporting life as we know it for a few more generations.

Just because you personally are inconvenienced by the implementation of what is arguably the most sound forest management plan ever devised - that CRAZY RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST plan implemented by Mother Nature herself - doesn't mean that it's a bad plan. Nor that the people who are advocating allowing at least SOME of our forest lands to be virtually abandoned by humans, so that they could return to their natural state, are out to ruin YOUR life, Granny.

Oh, and by the way: HUMANS ARE KILLING THE PLANET.

Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you. Go bury your head if it serves your needs to believe otherwise, but, it is a TRUE FACT that we ARE.