Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter Eight :: Scientists Will Be Sociologists
If the entrepreneurs and arbitrageurs were the heroes of the '80s, we hope scientists and engineers will be the stars of the '90s.[1]
We are constantly bombarded with stories that our carelessness, greed and excess have led to irreparable damage of our "lovely, delightful planet, our home."[2] The media tries to persuade us that industry and entrepreneurs create disaster. It is only the politically correct environmental scientist who has the knowledge and wisdom to restore balance to our planet.
The National Biological Survey will produce the map we need to avoid the economic and environmental 'train wrecks' we see scattered across the country. NBS will provide the scientific knowledge America needs to balance the compatible goals of ecosystem protection and economic progress.[3]
A stronger link between science and policy is stressed. . . . The concept of ecosystem sustainability involves many areas of policy, for example, economics and land use planning.[4]
So scientists will become the policy makers for all environmental considerations, including land use and economics. That is, they will decide where we live and which jobs are relevant to sustaining a balanced environment and economy.
The scientist will determine what a 'natural state' is, if there ever was such a state. It does not matter that a natural state may be worse[5] than a responsibly managed environment. The scientist will go about measuring the human impact to the environment, using Indian cultures and pagan traditions that have been handed down by word of mouth. They will decide how to get back to the natural, or how to establish our interconnection with Mother Earth.
When analyzing the landscape within an ecosystem management framework it is essential to include two considerations: 1. The landscape in an historical context. . . . how long the current landscape has been as it is now, as well as what forces caused it to be shaped to its present form. . . . 2. The impact of human occupation. . . . Not only can the social science broadly considered provide a human dimension to biological analysis, but they can answer critical questions about the impact on present human communities of decisions about land use. This includes issues of environmental justice, impacts on specific cultural values, such as Native American values. . . . the whole point about studying the human past is to learn from it what past cultures have to teach us about our interface with the environment.[6]
A Young Science
To establish the parks the promoters will detour our scientific thinking away from the needs of man and focus upon the needs of the earth. Their scientists have been documenting this new approach to ecology for the last two years. They claim to have developed a comprehensive approach, called 'landscape ecology,' that will solve the environmental crisis. Their aim is nothing short of political activism.
Landscape ecology is a young science that looks at ecological patterns and processes across large areas.[7]
GEA[8] is:
- Presenting a comprehensive ecological assessment of the region developed during two years of data collection, synthesis, and scientific analysis.
- Articulating an ambitious proposal, based on this assessment, for protecting the region's biodiversity.
- Helping local conservation groups translate the proposal into effective grassroots campaigns.[9]
Here is an overview of the landscape approach to ecological studies. Remember, this has been put together using two years' research.
A landscape approach examines how a watershed, or an area as large as the Greater North Cascades Ecosystem, changes over space and time, from high and low elevation, season to season, treetop to groundwater. It embraces the relationships between all elements and processes that make up an area: the natural mosaic of habitats, from low elevation forests to alpine meadows, and the large scale ecological processes that continually create these patterns, such as the flow of water and the course of wind and fire. As such, it provides a comprehensive basis for ecosystem conservation.[10]
Can an army of scientists develop comprehensive policies that truly takes in all of these considerations within a lifetime? Yet we are supposed to believe that the scientists have been able to develop a comprehensive study, based upon this model, in this short amount of time.
They have zeal but lack knowledge. They have rushed in their enthusiasm.[11] Their cause for excitement is what Paul Pritchard describes as, "an opportunity to enact a new paradigm for ourselves and the land we live in. . . . Both the United States and British Columbia have more environmentally sensitive administrations."[12] The generation that told us to 'turn off, tune in and drop out,' is now in control. They are our scientists and politicians. We are, as conservationist Pritchard said, "at the dawn of a new era."[13]
Stretching the Truth
The promoters are careful with words, trying to persuade us to voluntarily accept their environmental tyranny. The environmental scientists mask the truth with doublespeak. That is why they use catch phrases such as 'broadly considered,' or 'stretching.'
That is, if we stretch a bit. If we draw together patches of wilderness, across the jurisdictional and political boundaries that have divided them; if we extend protection to controversial species. . . if we embrace a new ethic that frames human needs within the needs of the land, and a new science that casts an eye to conservation rather than exploitation. If we take a few bold steps. . .[14]
This 'stretching' is not merely gathering large sections of land or expanding our horizons. It is the act of bringing into the conversation the controversial species. In other words, these are species that do not need protection. By attributing to them a simple 'indicator' status, they are able to shut down entire industries and communities.
It is a new ethic that places man in a subordinate position on the food chain. It is a new science, not based upon fact, but based upon the politics of environmentalism. Their 'few bold steps' are not steps of faith, they are grasps for power. This science embodies the 'truths' of their political philosophy, justifying more money and more regulations, and it justifies their religion, the worship of Mother Earth.
It doesn't matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true.[15]
Evolution or Conservation?
Evolutionary theory purports that all species evolved through natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Thomas Galton's theory of eugenics helped Darwin fill in the gaps of natural selection. Galton's premise was that the dominance of the good traits will purify existing species or establish new ones. The idea behind evolution is that every species evolves to a higher form.
Throughout the ages, however, there is one common denominator of all 'life forms.' That commonality is death. The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that all things degenerate until they die. Evolution cannot conquer death.
We glorify the natural animal and marvel at their oneness to the earth. We worship the wolf and we wear their tee shirts. Some claim the wolf is trying to communicate the importance of saving the planet. If we would just listen they would tell us how to do it.[16]
Wolves and grizzly bears, however, are two of the most destructive animals. Wolves run in packs and will kill for sport, leaving the carcass to rot. The grizzly bear devastates trees and underbrush in its way, often destroying the habitat of other less powerful creatures. The grizzly, also, will kill for sport or anger. These two, of all animals, are fittest to survive. Is it not antithetical to evolutionary principles to award environmental protection to these creatures?
If the theory of natural selection is true, then wouldn't we be inhibiting the arrival of hundreds of thousands of new species by preventing the extinction of the least fit to survive? Doesn't it seem strange that we worry about extinction when we have a plentiful supply of amoebas to start the process all over again?
The theory of environmentalism is antithetical to the theory of evolution. We cannot on the one hand claim that there is a process of natural selection; that the species evolve to higher forms and that the fittest of these survive. Then, on the other hand, claim that we must protect these 'endangered' species. If evolution is fact, then it follows that 'endangered' species were designed to be that way. This means that we are interfering with the natural processes, maybe Mother Nature herself, to protect what has been relegated to extinction.
Footnotes:
[1]Mary Ann Liebert, Genetic Engineering News, magazine (Jan 1990), quoted in Biotechnology in a Global Economy, US Government Printing Office (Oct 1991).
[2]description borrowed from John Reynolds, Deputy Director, National Park Service.
[3]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, “Subject: National Biological Survey.”
[4]op. cit., EPA, p. 5.
[5]The earth is under the Second Law of Thermodynamics which proves that all things degenerate. Nothing improves without tending. Environments where man does not tend will be overcome with rot. Periodically God cleanses these regions with fire.
[6]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, “Subject: Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management.”
[7]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[8]GEA is the Greater Ecosystem Alliance.
[9]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[10]id.
[11]Proverbs 19:2
[12]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[13]id.
[14]op. cit., For Wildness and Diversity in the Pacific Northwest, brochure.
[15]op. cit., Ray & Guzzo, p. 172. Quoting Paul Watson, co founder of Greenpeace.
[16]I have often wondered, if the wolf is trying to tell man how to save the earth, wouldn’t the other animals be trying to do the same thing? We have two dogs, three cats, eight chickens and a half dozen sheep. Not one of these animals has blockaded my truck to prevent me from driving off, spewing out carbons and chlorofluorocarbons, polluting the earth. None of them have shown me how to recycle. In fact, my dogs rob from the compost. They bring trash from the highway and chew it up on my front lawn. Then they litter all over the yard. My dogs are satisfied to have me scratch their ears and rub their bellies. My cats want me to massage their necks. My chickens want me to leave them alone and my sheep love a bucket of grain.