It’s been ages since I read the book, so I’ll rely on this review:
That kind of pattern has happened again and again. Animal A is endangered, so we protect them. This leads to increased numbers of Animal A, who eat lots of Plant B … the growth of which which means that Plant C is crowded out, and reduces the numbers of Animal D (who feeds exclusively on plant C), and is really really bad for Predator E, who eats Animal D. And now Predator E is endangered …
And we look back on things like designated grizzly-feeding areas and say “we’re so much smarter now” … missing the point that those mistakes were made by intelligent, concerned people who really thought they were doing the wisest thing. And that we do in fact make the same mistakes now.
Take for example, the plan to fight global warming by requiring the use of biofuels. Great idea, eh?
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/burning_palm_oil_fuels_cli_23082006.html
The Big Myth is that nature exists in some sort of perfect harmony, and it’s only bad old humans that mess it up. In reality, the environment, including the climate, is always changing, always in flux, whit species always growing or shrinking or becoming extinct altogether. We understand it very, very, very poorly.
Wanting to keep and bear weapons is the same as wanting to deprive citizens of the right to keep and bear weapons. Wanting to use lightbulbs which do not contain mercury is the same as wanting to force people to use lightbulbs which contain mercury. Wanting to choose how and whether to donate to charity is the same as wanting to force people to give to charity.
Not being familiar with the book, but being VERY familiar with the NAIA, do you have any reviews, cites, etc., that aren’t from them? Not having any knowledge of him, it’s quite possible that the author is extremely concerned about animal welfare, conservation, etc., but the NAIA is pretty much the opposite, so I’d like a better second-hand source for the material, if possible.
My take on it (to the OP) is that conservatives generally view the left as sky-is-falling Chicken Littles prone to alarm for no good reason and who are anti-business and pro-government in their philosophies to boot. Thus, when the left starts complaining that we’re running out of trees and we need laws to protect them, the right looks out and sees trees as far as the eye can see (and as a renewable resource anyway), and views these concerns as baseless alarmism and an attempt to promote further government control over American private life and enterprise.
The left also seems to resent the harvesting of trees because companies are harvesting them in order to make money :mad:, where the right applauds the harvesting of trees because then everything from houses to salad bowls to toothpicks get made, and we view those as good things that enhance the quality of life.
I think the same type of attitudes exist on both sides where global warming, snail darters or anything else environmental is concerned. The left is fearful and wants government control (which come to think of it is pretty much liberal ideology in a nutshell) and the right wants to be left alone in order to get things done and be free of needless and possibly hostile government interference.
Personal property rights vs. environmental protections are one problem.
Hunting vs. taking photos is another.
Ducks Unlimited is one of the most successful non-governmental conservation group (wetlands protection), and is heavily backed by hunters.
I think that a large part of the problem is the duality in our politics. The Left “owns” the environment as a cause, so the Right can not embrace it and instead has to openly fight it. I find a similar issue with guns - there are plenty of Left Wing Gun Nuts out there, but they are shunned by the “leaders” of their group.
I have no idea nor concern about who or what NAIA is. It’s irrelevant. I linked to a synopsis of a book, and a generally accurate one as far as I can recall. If you don’t like them, google the name of the book and read one of the dozens of other summaries of the book on the internet.
The author was very much concerned about the environment, but one of the main points of the book, and the one that applies to this thread, was that things at Yellowstone kept getting fouled up by exactly the people who were sincerely trying to do right by the ecosystem with their new grand schemes.
Regarding conservationism and conservatism, there’s a strong element of truth to that statement. Up until 1980 or so, most environmental issues were not so politically and ideologically divisive as they were later. Be they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, most people advocated legislation against pollution and for wilderness preservation. It really wasn’t until Reagan was elected and his selection of James Watt as Interior Secretary that anti-environmental attitudes started becoming ingrained into the Republican Party and mainstream conservatism.
Why aren’t ‘progressives’ in favor of progress? Because the words Conservative and Progressive have been highjacked and have no relation to their original meanings.
No, it’s not irrelevant. If the link had simply been text from the book, it wouldn’t matter where it came from. Since the link was to a synopsis provided by an extremely biased organization, one is hard pressed to get an understanding of what the author’s actual arguments were.
I have, which is why I questioned your particular link. I was able to find plenty of people who critiqued the book, while still showing admiration for many things in it, such as here. I’m pretty sure that he’s not a lobbyist for the “debarking” industry.
And one of the critiques of the book is that this point was based on what the author considered to be an optimal Yellowstone, in his opinion.
Either way, now that I’ve found other links with summaries of the books, and without the heavy bias, I’m happy to stop this highjack in its tracks.
Fluorescent lightbulbs contain very little mercury, and their energy efficiency means that less electricity is needed for the same illumination, which means less mercury is released from the coal burned to power it. A ban has been announced, yes, but that was signed by George Bush.
Forcing? Who’s doing that? Everybody wants others to donate, to the point of giving tax breaks. Who’s proposing mandatory gifts to charities, other than businesses involved with the United Way?
First, as **Tamerlane **pointed out, it’s a question of conflicting interests, and conservatives are generally more protective of individual property rights.
Second, large-scale conservation efforts are generally very expensive – either in terms of government spending, or in state-mandated costs to private business – which is more likely to rankle the small-government folks.
As I understand it he’s not a conservative, but this NY Times article on Freeman Dyson and AGW is worth a read. Essentially, he’s saying that the problems associated with climate change are quite uncertain, whereas the costs of a large scale effort to throw it unto reverse – to the extent that we even know what they are – are huge. Example:
Why must it be “I got mine, fuck you”? I’d characterize it more like “I got mine, why don’t you get yours”? The only people who think the conservative position is I Got Mine, Fuck You are people who want to take away what others have earned and spend it on behalf of those who have chosen a less stressful, less risky and less industrious - and therefore less financially rewarding - way of life, and who therefore seek to demonize the earners by attributing to them selfish and inflammatory sentiments they don’t have. Why should you be entitled to some of what others have worked for just because you exist? If you’re running low on food do you feel entitled to walk into your neighbor’s house and help yourself to some of his food simply because he has some and you don’t? Would you feel entitled to take money from his wallet because he has more than you do and you happen to need some? And would you call him selfish or uncaring when he objects? Chances are you wouldn’t, and if not what’s the difference between your doing it and the government doing it on your behalf? Why can’t you just provide for yourself instead of wanting to take what others have earned and then calling them names or accusing them of inflammatory sentiments when they object?
Read the book Theodore Rex (by Edmund Morris), in addition to being a great read it makes it quite clear that Roosevelt called himself a conservative. In the book there is even a quote from Roosevelt himself that explains that his definition of conservative is not maintenance of the status quo but a policy of gradual and structured change. In T.R.'s opinion change was certain, but the manner in which societal changes happened could be managed and controlled. Roosevelt openly detested the concept of “experimentation” with society at large, which is what he felt liberalism was all about.
We can argue about whether T.R. as a conservative but he himself called himself one. He also called himself a progressive, these terms aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive when you realize that one word can’t encapsulate the entirety of a person.