Environmentalism That Kills!

[gallantwarrior]

You've bought the Left-wing hype like it was on sale.

"... let's blame people with legitimate reasons to be against GM foods."

There are no legitimate reasons to be against GM foods.



The most Leftist of of bodies is the EU.

The EU operated via the ‘precautionary principle’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land.
“The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle


b. “In practice, many environmentalists do not eschew risk analysis when they apply the principle; rather, they use it selectively to advance preconceived agendas, cherry-picking scientific risk assessments and information in order to restrict technologies that they dislike — such as biotechnology, DDT, fossil fuels, nuclear energy — and to advance technologies that they favor, including forms of renewable energy, organic farming and light-weight vehicles.”
Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT | NCPA


Even so....

In 2010, the European Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO research, concluded that “there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”



Only the gullible believe as you do.

Honey, I am neither left-wing nor gullible and I am very much against GMOs. There is actually quite a bit of evidence that GMOs are NOT all they've been sold as. But follow the money, honey. Big agri is all for GMOs. They hold the patents and have a vested interest in destroying all other farming sources in order to corner the market.
Food control = people control. Maybe even more so than control of our access to health care.

The Effects Of Gmos | LIVESTRONG.COM

Weighing the GMO arguments: against

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods - Weston A Price Foundation

"There is actually quite a bit of evidence that GMOs are NOT all they've been sold as. But follow the money, honey."

No, there isn't, sonny.


…for nearly 20 years, billions of animals in the European Union and the United States have been fed soy products produced from genetically modified soybean, mainly from Latin America. Yet, no problems have been reported by the hundreds of thousands of farmers, officials and vets.


And...stop being afraid of capitalism.
That idea is a primary doctrine of the anti-GM cabal.

OK, sonny?

GMOs can and do cross with normal crops. Since GMOs are engineered so that they do not propagate normally, and only certain big agribusinesses hold the patents to "seed crop", who controls the food resources when regular guys can no longer raise un-contaminated crops and are forced to purchase "seed" from GMO patent-holders.
I would think that given the evidence already available and the gross mistakes made in the past by rushing into such "miraculous" improvements, caution would be preferred. We're messing with the potential of destroying, or at the very least, crippling our ability to provide food for ourselves and our families.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Environmentalism that has no interest in human lives....only the care of Gaia.

At the heart of the modern environmentalist movement is a contempt, a repugnance, for humanity. Attempts to ban DDT are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans, but merely collateral damage to the greenists who consider imaginary damage to the 'environment,' Holy Mother Earth, of a higher value than human lives.

Genetically modified foods will be the next battlefront….and is already littered with maimed and dead children.





1. “Vitamin A deficiency has killed 8 million kids in the last 12 years….Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice” with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency.
Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?

2. Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10 percent at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal the Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of 5 each year.

a. Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners—from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein—have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency. In India,Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and adviser to the government, called golden rice “a hoax” that is “creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.”




3. Two recent studies in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutritionshow that just 50 grams (roughly two ounces) of golden rice can provide 60 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A. They show that golden rice is even better than spinach in providing vitamin A to children….Greenpeace says that golden rice is “neither needed nor necessary,” and calls instead for supplementation and fortification, which are described as “cost-effective.” But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life saved from vitamin A deficiency.

4. Greenpeace calls golden rice a “failure,” because it “has been in development for almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency.” But, … that failure is due almost entirely to relentless opposition to GM foods—often by rich, well-meaning Westerners far removed from the risks of actual vitamin A deficiency.





5. …current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.

6. Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods. But many campaigners have claimed other effects. A common story, still repeated by Shiva, is that GM corn with Bt toxin kills Monarch butterflies. Several peer-reviewed studies, however, have effectively established that “the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible.”

7. Greenpeace and many others claim that GM foods merely enable big companies like Monsanto to wield near-monopoly power. But that puts the cart before the horse: The predominance of big companies partly reflects anti-GM activism, which has made the approval process so long and costly that only rich companies catering to First World farmers can afford to see it through.





8. In 2010, the European Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO research, concluded that “there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”

9. True to form, Greenpeace is already protesting that “the next ‘golden rice’ guinea pigs might be Filipino children.” The 4.4 million Filipino kids with vitamin A deficiency might not mind so much.” GM food: Golden rice will save millions of people from vitamin A deficiency. - Slate Magazine

This is a very interesting subject and you may be right.

As a conservative that suprises me, you accepting all these based on little claims from the companies that stand to profit. Who spun off Solutia to all their problems anyways?

Still though you may be right.

I'll have to do some research and see if the OP posts a spoon fed party doctrine or boot steps to a party line...

Just givin you a hard time PC. like I said on this one you may be right. I prefer a slower approach than what we are taking but accept it as inevitable some genetically modified crop is bound to be ok.

"all these based on little claims from the companies that stand to profit"


Why the fear of profits?

It isn't the profits that are threatening, it's the extent to which these companies will go to destroy any and all competition, no matter how small and insignificant.

 

[there4eyeM]

"... the common sense demand, wait for it to be unsafe."

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, 'Chic. Common sense? Wait to see if it's unsafe? I doubt many would call that 'common sense'.
Wanna do away with controls on food and drugs?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

She's just a partisan hack who is trying to convince rational, thinking people (unlike herself) that taking care of our environment & resisting a mega-corporation's bullying of our citizens and downright dangerous practices is a bad thing - and that there is no science involved *snort* at all where environmentalism is concerned. I know! I wish she would just move to China and stop whining. There is no point in arguing with her cut and paste drivel.

CHINA: Jin Zengmin Makes River Bet - Business Insider

 

[there4eyeM]

She's just a partisan hack who is trying to convince rational, thinking people (unlike herself) that taking care of our environment & resisting a mega-corporation's bullying of our citizens and downright dangerous practices is a bad thing - and that there is no science involved *snort* at all where environmentalism is concerned. I know! I wish she would just move to China and stop whining. There is no point in arguing with her cut and paste drivel.

CHINA: Jin Zengmin Makes River Bet - Business Insider

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers" (oxymoron, I know). There's not one original thought in her head. And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board that probably believe her too. That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP...

 

[there4eyeM]

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers" (oxymoron, I know). There's not one original thought in her head. And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board that probably believe her too. That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP...

Granted it is difficult to understand her preoccupation with moribund subjects, she does bring a little style to the scene.

 

[there4eyeM]

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers" (oxymoron, I know). There's not one original thought in her head. And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board that probably believe her too. That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP...

Granted it is difficult to understand her preoccupation with moribund subjects, she does bring a little style to the scene.

That said, she needs no one to defend her. She seems to be able to take care of herself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Honey, I am neither left-wing nor gullible and I am very much against GMOs. There is actually quite a bit of evidence that GMOs are NOT all they've been sold as. But follow the money, honey. Big agri is all for GMOs. They hold the patents and have a vested interest in destroying all other farming sources in order to corner the market.
Food control = people control. Maybe even more so than control of our access to health care.

The Effects Of Gmos | LIVESTRONG.COM

Weighing the GMO arguments: against

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods - Weston A Price Foundation

"There is actually quite a bit of evidence that GMOs are NOT all they've been sold as. But follow the money, honey."

No, there isn't, sonny.


…for nearly 20 years, billions of animals in the European Union and the United States have been fed soy products produced from genetically modified soybean, mainly from Latin America. Yet, no problems have been reported by the hundreds of thousands of farmers, officials and vets.


And...stop being afraid of capitalism.
That idea is a primary doctrine of the anti-GM cabal.

OK, sonny?

GMOs can and do cross with normal crops. Since GMOs are engineered so that they do not propagate normally, and only certain big agribusinesses hold the patents to "seed crop", who controls the food resources when regular guys can no longer raise un-contaminated crops and are forced to purchase "seed" from GMO patent-holders.
I would think that given the evidence already available and the gross mistakes made in the past by rushing into such "miraculous" improvements, caution would be preferred. We're messing with the potential of destroying, or at the very least, crippling our ability to provide food for ourselves and our families.

1. "GMOs can and do cross with normal crops. Since GMOs are engineered so that they do not propagate normally,..."

Make up your mind.


2. "only certain big agribusinesses hold the patents to "seed crop",

The inventor gets to benefit from the invention. That's memorialized in the US Constitution.



3. "who controls the food resources when regular guys can no longer raise un-contaminated crops and are forced to purchase "seed" from GMO patent-holders."

There is a remarkable misunderstanding therein....so let me remark on it: although seeds of GM produce is more expensive, farmers, of their own volition purchase same. Why? Because they recognize the increased profit: insect resistant, or plants with a longer growing season, result in a higher return.

You see, that is the beauty of capitalism, as opposed to totalitarian systems: transactions are voluntary due to the mutual benefits involved.


4. "I would think that given the evidence already available..."

It exists primarily in two places: Leftist ideology, and your imagination.



5. "...caution would be preferred..."

And a senseless 'caution' is built into the European Union's dictates.

Here it is:

The ‘precautionary principle’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land. “The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle


And guess what: even they think you're Chicken Little, afraid the sky is falling.



6. "crippling our ability to provide food for ourselves and our families."

You'd best put away the Thomas Malthus books.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a very interesting subject and you may be right.

As a conservative that suprises me, you accepting all these based on little claims from the companies that stand to profit. Who spun off Solutia to all their problems anyways?

Still though you may be right.

I'll have to do some research and see if the OP posts a spoon fed party doctrine or boot steps to a party line...

Just givin you a hard time PC. like I said on this one you may be right. I prefer a slower approach than what we are taking but accept it as inevitable some genetically modified crop is bound to be ok.

"all these based on little claims from the companies that stand to profit"


Why the fear of profits?

It isn't the profits that are threatening, it's the extent to which these companies will go to destroy any and all competition, no matter how small and insignificant.

"...it's the extent to which these companies will go to destroy any and all competition, no matter how small and insignificant."

Know why Liberals hate capitalism?
Because there are winners and losers. Their raison d'etre is to make sure that some imaginary equality is reached.
You too?




Time for your lesson in Business 101.

From chapter seven of Gingrich's "To Save America.":

1. One of those urban myths is that the Left battles big business on behalf of the ‘little guy’….those greedy ‘robber barons!’ Of course, as is true of so many ‘truths’….it is false.

2. The actuality is that big business knows that the greatest threat is not government or its regulation, but competition with smaller, more innovative firms. So, when the opportunity arises to cooperate with government in crafting new regulation, big business lobbyists, rather than opposing ‘reform,’ they write the laws for their own advantages!

a. The truth about the Left’s push for ever-greater regulation of private industry is that, rather than to protect consumers against big business…it is designed to make big business become part of their political machine.

b. And big business will pay whatever it takes to join.

3. Example: The regulatory reforms of the meat packing industry in the early 1900s, inspired by Upton Sinclair’s muckraking book “The Jungle,” were enacted with the enthusiastic cooperation of America’s largest meat packing corporations- because they knew that only the largest could afford to comply with the new regulations. Thus, the smaller ones were driven out of business.





a. Upton Sinclair: “The federal inspection of meat was historically established at the packer’s request. It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.”
William J. Chambliss, “Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions,” p. 5

b. Last year’s ‘Food Safety Modernization Act’ ensured that ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) and Monsanto improved their market share because family farmers had just been forced to layer thousands of dollars of regulatory costs on top of already fragile income statements. Monsanto had lobbied for the law!
Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.5.





Did you vote for the failure in the White House?
If you did, based on what you posted....you've been snookered.


4. “Obama signed the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” and followed it up by saying: "Today, despite decades of lobbying and advertising by the tobacco industry, we've passed a law to help protect the next generation of Americans from growing up with a deadly habit..." Philip Morris championed that bill for years. The next day, the homepage of Phillip Morris said: "Philip Morris supports Federal Regulation of Tobacco."… Philip Morris spent $40,000-a-day on a pro-regulation lobbying effort.”
Barack Obama: The Best Friend of Big Business - St. Louis Conservative | Examiner.com



For you, via Longfellow:

Tell me not in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"... the common sense demand, wait for it to be unsafe."

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, 'Chic. Common sense? Wait to see if it's unsafe? I doubt many would call that 'common sense'.
Wanna do away with controls on food and drugs?

"I doubt many would call that 'common sense'."

Well....let's explore that.

"It is not possible to make the argument that all products are totally safe….yet, that is exactly the progressive thinking, as instituted in Europe. Called the “precautionary principle,” it deals with new products and technology as though the tiniest bit of negative evidence requires extensive regulation, moratoriums, congressional testimonies, …heck, outright banning: “…until it is proven safe! It requires a scientifically impossible standard that none can achieve.

a.‘Progressive advocates, particularly environmentalists, have advanced the idea that the same principle be use in the United States. Of course, the sensible position is to ask that opponents prove it to be unsafe.

b. And…it suggests that that older technologies are safer than newer ones, and to be on the alert for ‘dangerous’ new innovations!’ "
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p.143-144.



Or....do you believe that 'common sense' requires that that every new product or invention be withheld for.....what...100 years? A millennium?
Hey....can never be too safe, can we?

So, is that what you believe?

Let's remember that 'common sense' is what tells one that two plumb lines are parallel.
(They're not.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

She's just a partisan hack who is trying to convince rational, thinking people (unlike herself) that taking care of our environment & resisting a mega-corporation's bullying of our citizens and downright dangerous practices is a bad thing - and that there is no science involved *snort* at all where environmentalism is concerned. I know! I wish she would just move to China and stop whining. There is no point in arguing with her cut and paste drivel.

CHINA: Jin Zengmin Makes River Bet - Business Insider

Hey....don't give up so easily....just 'cause I spanked you last time.

I do like so much getting under your skin....how long will it take for me to reduce you to your usual vulgar language?

C'mon....give it a shot.
Tell all about your milk experience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She's just a partisan hack who is trying to convince rational, thinking people (unlike herself) that taking care of our environment & resisting a mega-corporation's bullying of our citizens and downright dangerous practices is a bad thing - and that there is no science involved *snort* at all where environmentalism is concerned. I know! I wish she would just move to China and stop whining. There is no point in arguing with her cut and paste drivel.

CHINA: Jin Zengmin Makes River Bet - Business Insider

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

Oh, no!!

Ya' big ol' kill-joy!

You're giving it away!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers" (oxymoron, I know). m. And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board that probably believe her too. That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP...

"Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers"..."


1. WHAT???

I'm expected to carry your side of the argument as well????


What am I Scrubbing Bubbles- I work hard so you don't have to???



2. "There's not one original thought in her head."
Now don't be so hard on yourself. I whip you handily without a brain???
What are you saying you must lack then?



3. "And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board..."
Now just one darn cotton-pickin' minute!!!

There's nobody like me.....anywhere!!!

Sometimes I wonder why there's no action figure of me yet.




4. "That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP..."
The first rule of fight club: never talk about fight club.

The first rule of USMB: PC never lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers" (oxymoron, I know). There's not one original thought in her head. And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board that probably believe her too. That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP...

Granted it is difficult to understand her preoccupation with moribund subjects, she does bring a little style to the scene.

That said, she needs no one to defend her. She seems to be able to take care of herself.

Aw, shucks...(kicks stone).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, come on! She does stir us up and she doesn't get too 'vituperative', at least not as fast as some do here.

Whatever. She cherry-picks the quotes from favored RW "philosophers" (oxymoron, I know). There's not one original thought in her head. And there are so many brain-dead like her on this message board that probably believe her too. That's what pisses me off - the spreading so much untrue CRAP...

Granted it is difficult to understand her preoccupation with moribund subjects, she does bring a little style to the scene.

Not 'moribund'......'misunderstood'.

And I bring understanding.



I realize how unfair it is.....but I actually read books.

 

[Toronado3800]

Environmentalism that has no interest in human lives....only the care of Gaia.

At the heart of the modern environmentalist movement is a contempt, a repugnance, for humanity. Attempts to ban DDT are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans, but merely collateral damage to the greenists who consider imaginary damage to the 'environment,' Holy Mother Earth, of a higher value than human lives.

Genetically modified foods will be the next battlefront….and is already littered with maimed and dead children.





1. “Vitamin A deficiency has killed 8 million kids in the last 12 years….Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice” with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency.
Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?

2. Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10 percent at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal the Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of 5 each year.

a. Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners—from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein—have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency. In India,Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and adviser to the government, called golden rice “a hoax” that is “creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.”




3. Two recent studies in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutritionshow that just 50 grams (roughly two ounces) of golden rice can provide 60 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A. They show that golden rice is even better than spinach in providing vitamin A to children….Greenpeace says that golden rice is “neither needed nor necessary,” and calls instead for supplementation and fortification, which are described as “cost-effective.” But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life saved from vitamin A deficiency.

4. Greenpeace calls golden rice a “failure,” because it “has been in development for almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency.” But, … that failure is due almost entirely to relentless opposition to GM foods—often by rich, well-meaning Westerners far removed from the risks of actual vitamin A deficiency.





5. …current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.

6. Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods. But many campaigners have claimed other effects. A common story, still repeated by Shiva, is that GM corn with Bt toxin kills Monarch butterflies. Several peer-reviewed studies, however, have effectively established that “the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible.”

7. Greenpeace and many others claim that GM foods merely enable big companies like Monsanto to wield near-monopoly power. But that puts the cart before the horse: The predominance of big companies partly reflects anti-GM activism, which has made the approval process so long and costly that only rich companies catering to First World farmers can afford to see it through.





8. In 2010, the European Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO research, concluded that “there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”

9. True to form, Greenpeace is already protesting that “the next ‘golden rice’ guinea pigs might be Filipino children.” The 4.4 million Filipino kids with vitamin A deficiency might not mind so much.” GM food: Golden rice will save millions of people from vitamin A deficiency. - Slate Magazine

This is a very interesting subject and you may be right.

As a conservative that suprises me, you accepting all these based on little claims from the companies that stand to profit. Who spun off Solutia to all their problems anyways?

Still though you may be right.

I'll have to do some research and see if the OP posts a spoon fed party doctrine or boot steps to a party line...

Just givin you a hard time PC. like I said on this one you may be right. I prefer a slower approach than what we are taking but accept it as inevitable some genetically modified crop is bound to be ok.

"all these based on little claims from the companies that stand to profit"


Why the fear of profits?

Think harder!

Silly girl, we even try yo make money where I work lol.

As I mentioned with Solutia.....
and while I think about it, the scum bags in my industry, the retail furniture world, who sell used mattresses as new.....
ppl will do terrible things in the pursuit of a buck.

We have all been exposed to that. GM foods are not my enemy like I said earlier. Still gotta be wary of folks where money is involved and the true believers.

 

[Nika2013]

Not Carson's Silent Spring... Publications from my state's Department of Conservation (we have tons of eagles since DDT was banned) Open a science book? I have three degrees in science...including a masters...How about you? Trying to create science from conservative speculation does not = science

Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery - US FISH AND WILDLIFE


A North American species with a historic range from Alaska and Canada to northern Mexico, the bald eagle is an Endangered Species Act success story.

Forty years ago, our national symbol was in danger of extinction throughout most of its range. Habitat destruction and degradation, illegal shooting, and the contamination of its food source, largely as a consequence of DDT, decimated the eagle population. Habitat protection afforded by the Endangered Species Act, the federal government’s banning of DDT, and conservation actions taken by the American public have helped bald eagles make a remarkable recovery.

Bald Eagle Biology

Distinguished by a white head and white tail feathers, bald eagles are powerful, brown birds that may weigh 14 pounds and have a wingspan of 8 feet. Male eagles are smaller, weighing as much as 10 pounds and have a wingspan of 6 feet. Sometimes confused with golden eagles, bald eagles are mostly dark brown until they are four to five years old and acquire their characteristic coloring. There is a distinction between the two species, though, even during the early years. Only the tops of the bald eagle’s legs have feathers. The legs of golden eagles are feathered all the way down.

Bald eagles live near rivers, lakes, and marshes where they can find fish, their staple food. Bald eagles will also feed on waterfowl, turtles, rabbits, snakes, and other small animals and carrion.

www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/.../DDT_and_Birds
[url=http://www.eagles.org/vu-study/survival/threats-to-survival.php
[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0620_020620_baldeagle_2.htm

 

[there4eyeM]

"You see, that is the beauty of capitalism, as opposed to totalitarian systems: transactions are voluntary due to the mutual benefits involved."

Agreed that it CAN function that way, but 'unbridled' capitalism can be every bit as repressive as any totalitarianism. The nineteenth century showed that. Today, more sophistication may be brought to bear, but humans can be just as poorly served by the incentives enormous corporations follow.

Small enterprise, locally responsive and responsible, is a fine use of capitalism. Capitalism is not a faith or ideology like religion or fascism. It is a fashion of functioning. It depends upon the motives and interests of those practicing it. By itself, it cannot save the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You see, that is the beauty of capitalism, as opposed to totalitarian systems: transactions are voluntary due to the mutual benefits involved."

Agreed that it CAN function that way, but 'unbridled' capitalism can be every bit as repressive as any totalitarianism. The nineteenth century showed that. Today, more sophistication may be brought to bear, but humans can be just as poorly served by the incentives enormous corporations follow.

Small enterprise, locally responsive and responsible, is a fine use of capitalism. Capitalism is not a faith or ideology like religion or fascism. It is a fashion of functioning. It depends upon the motives and interests of those practicing it. By itself, it cannot save the world.

We have what is known as a mixed economy....not 'unbridled' capitalism.


'Else how to explain Davis-Bacon and other minimum wage laws.

The government is, in effect the opposite side of the coin from the free market, capitalism.


1. But what about the abuses of the free market?

a. Some will be corrected by the law, and if there is no current law, the citizenry will demand such.

b. Some abuse run afoul of custom….these will be corrected by censure, withdrawal of custom, or may be criminalized.

c. Alas, some must be endured, as they would be under any system of government, business or administration.


2. Now, here is the determining criterion as to which is better: which is better able to correct itself? This is the difference between, as Thomas Sowell would say, the free market (constrained) and the Liberal (unconstrained) view of the world. Either side may be wrong about plans, or about programs. But which system is better able to discard the failed and experiment to find the new.

a. The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.


3. The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.

a. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.

4. In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!
From chapter 10 of "The Secret Knowledge," David Mamet.