What The #!!?** Happened to Conservation??

[PoliticalChic]

1. Modern environmentalism is, and I mean this in the kindest way, a bastardization of the conservation of the Progressive Era.
Today’s devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and…the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.

2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN

3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem…..not people. “He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Francisco’s need for water took precedence. “With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections.” The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS

5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own.” Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain America’s position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.





7. Today, the meaning of ‘environmentalism’ has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the “Watermelon Movement:” green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: “Pinchot’s authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. This was the reason for TR’s return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.




Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.

 

[Old Rocks]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Both fight the same thing. What's the difference?

 

[rdean]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

It takes constant vigilance. Look at the 2010 elections. Good people have got to stop ignoring midterms. The country pays a price when the current crop of Republicans are given a chance to promote their dangerous and damaging agenda. You can't reason with crazy. Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1%. A restrictive social agenda. Somehow they think "twinkle down" and their other policies are somehow "conservative".

 

[AmyNation]

"Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so."
Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1907


"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

-TR

 

[Mad Scientist]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

Right! Because only the Globalists who shipped our jobs to China get to do that.

And now it's up to Obama and the Democrats to shut down whatever is left of our once strong economy.

 

[Old Rocks]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

Right! Because only the Globalists who shipped our jobs to China get to do that.

And now it's up to Obama and the Democrats to shut down whatever is left of our once strong economy.

When we look back on an economy that has pulled itself out of the hole that the GOP put it in about two years from now, your agates are going to be even more frosted than on 7Nov12. Must be a real thrill to be constantly wishing economic ruin on your fellow countrymen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

You reversed what TR and Pinchot started, and march lock-step with the other totalitarians.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The so called solutions wacko environmentalists are proposing is akin to using a tourniquet to stop a nosebleed.

I have been an advocate of conservation and protecting wild places my entire life and I cannot agree with the wacko warming crowd on anyth8ing they want to do.

 

[Sallow]

1. Modern environmentalism is, and I mean this in the kindest way, a bastardization of the conservation of the Progressive Era.
Today’s devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and…the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.

2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN

3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem…..not people. “He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Francisco’s need for water took precedence. “With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections.” The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS

5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own.” Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain America’s position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.





7. Today, the meaning of ‘environmentalism’ has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the “Watermelon Movement:” green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: “Pinchot’s authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. This was the reason for TR’s return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.




Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.

Teddy Roosevelt would have called a "Watermelon" by today's conservatives. And he NEVER would have gotten many of his initiatives through today's congress.

 

[Sallow]

"Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so."
Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1907


"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

-TR

Amazing isn't it?

 

[Sallow]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

Right! Because only the Globalists who shipped our jobs to China get to do that.

And now it's up to Obama and the Democrats to shut down whatever is left of our once strong economy.

Which is why manufacturing jobs that went overseas during the Bush administration have come home during the Obama administration.

Reality.

Learn it.

Live it.

It does you good.

 

[Sallow]

The so called solutions wacko environmentalists are proposing is akin to using a tourniquet to stop a nosebleed.

I have been an advocate of conservation and protecting wild places my entire life and I cannot agree with the wacko warming crowd on anyth8ing they want to do.

And which "so called solutions" would those be?

This ought to be good.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The so called solutions wacko environmentalists are proposing is akin to using a tourniquet to stop a nosebleed.

I have been an advocate of conservation and protecting wild places my entire life and I cannot agree with the wacko warming crowd on anyth8ing they want to do.

And which "so called solutions" would those be?

This ought to be good.

Cap and trade, carbon taxing, tax subsidies for so called renewable power

So called global initiatives that will choke our economy. Ignoring the best available option for emission free power.



Shall I go on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Modern environmentalism is, and I mean this in the kindest way, a bastardization of the conservation of the Progressive Era.
Today’s devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and…the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.

2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN

3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem…..not people. “He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Francisco’s need for water took precedence. “With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections.” The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS

5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own.” Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain America’s position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.





7. Today, the meaning of ‘environmentalism’ has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the “Watermelon Movement:” green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: “Pinchot’s authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. This was the reason for TR’s return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.




Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.

Teddy Roosevelt would have called a "Watermelon" by today's conservatives. And he NEVER would have gotten many of his initiatives through today's congress.

Your post is, of course, totally unrelated to the OP.


I'd be happy to engage a thread you'd like to begin about Teddy vis-a-vis Progressivism.


Focus like a laser.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

Right! Because only the Globalists who shipped our jobs to China get to do that.

And now it's up to Obama and the Democrats to shut down whatever is left of our once strong economy.

Which is why manufacturing jobs that went overseas during the Bush administration have come home during the Obama administration.

Reality.

Learn it.

Live it.

It does you good.

This is the result of the corrupt media and marginally intelligent folks like you.

And, why it is correct to refer to same as 'the low information voter.'



For your edification:

1. The Obama administration had joined the new Arab-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and agreed to provide millions to support international green energy jobs. “In its fiscal 2012 budget request for international programs, the administration has asked for $5.2 million for IRENA.” U.S. Taxpayers on the Hook As Obama Joins a New International Renewable Energy Agency | CNS News How many jobs in the United States will this endeavor provide?

2. Obama regulatory and tax policies sent jobs overseas.

3. “President Barack Obama will present his “jobs plan” on Wednesday at a company which is shipping jobs overseas…. WestStar is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica — creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States.” http://test.dailycaller.com/2011/09...c-company-that’s-shipping-jobs-to-costa-rica/

4. “This isn’t the first time Obama has chosen to speak at a North Carolina company outsourcing jobs overseas. In mid-June, Obama spoke at Cree LED Light Company to discuss his job creation and economic policies. Cree has been shipping jobs to China.” Ibid.

a. Cree was also a recipient of Obama stimulus funds, a portion of which was also used to send jobs overseas. Limbaugh, “The Great Destroyer,” p.27.

5. “The Department of Energy estimated that 82,000 jobs have been created and has acknowledged that as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries includingChina, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.” 'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus - Washington Times

6. WASHINGTON -- Xerox, whose CEO, Ursula Burns, is advising President Obama on exports, last week told its product engineering employees that it is in outsourcing talks with India-based IT services firm HCL Technologies. Xerox CEO, an Obama appointee, may send jobs to Indian firm - Computerworld

7. (CNSNews.com) – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today that he told his daughter to buy a Japanese car--a Toyota Sienna--and that she did so. U.S. Transportation Secretary: I Told My Daughter to Buy Japanese Car | CNS News

8. “U.S. funds, Arizona effort help Mexico trucks pollute less
Using EPA grant money, the state offered to refit the trucks with the new exhaust systems, replacing factory-installed mufflers with converters similar to what is required for U.S. trucks. The process takes two or three hours to complete at a cost per truck of about $1,600…. The entire cost - parts and labor - is paid by the EPA grant through ADEQ.” http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...rizona-mexico-truck-pollution-regulation.html

9. “…Obama administration is now taking your American tax dollars and using them to fund the BBC World Service — Britain’s state-financed radio network.” The PJ Tatler » Your tax dollars now funding the BBC in addition to NPR



Now, I don't expect any amelioration...I've seen your response to education, before.

You treat it the way a vampire treats a cross.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We improved on what TR started. And idiots like you just have to live with it. You and yours are not going to get to log off every tree, or pollute every river.

Now, tell the truth.
You collectivists have reversed what TR intended. He didn't believe that humans are deleterious, he, in fact, wanted to develop forests for profit, to be used by the logging and timber industry.



1. Born out of a fear that pastoral lands would be overrun by developers, the environmentalists practice ‘fortress conservation,’ the typical form of conservation everywhere. It involves locking down as much land as possible and practicing ‘natural regulation,’ which means no one touches it! Ever. Not even ‘disturbing the vegetation.’

This is clearly the opposite view of TR and Pinchot.





2. Now, for most of recorded history, humans have practiced adaptive management of resources., i.e., when a problem crops up, we solve it. If we want a landscape, we create one; a working forest, ditto.

3. Rangeland, farmland, townscapes- all can be managed for bounty and health of resources and people!

This was TR's concept of conservation.....very different from your prohibitive and parochial view.




4. But ‘natural regulation’ began in the 1960’s in almost all land-use agencies in the world and quickly became the preferred method by which all resources and land were to be managed. Over the past five decades, natural regulation has been adapted almost everywhere. Nature knows best.
And this plan has destroyed millions of acres of forests.
Destroyed them.

1960's....the birth of so very much Leftist dogma.....exactly what you endorse.

a. Man is a virus and a despoiler and must be controlled!

Hardly the view of TR or Pinchot.....

.....but exactly what modern environmentalists believe.

 

[Trakar]

1. Modern environmentalism is, and I mean this in the kindest way, a bastardization of the conservation of the Progressive Era.
Today’s devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and…the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.

2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN

3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem…..not people. “He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Francisco’s need for water took precedence. “With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections.” The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS

5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own.” Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain America’s position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.

7. Today, the meaning of ‘environmentalism’ has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the “Watermelon Movement:” green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: “Pinchot’s authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. This was the reason for TR’s return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.

Conservationism certainly differed from modern environmentalism, but the idea that conservationism was merely or predominantly about preserving national public assets for future private exploitation and private profits from that exploitation, is an inexcusable perversion of conservationism. That may arise from the conflations of TR concerns about sustainable public access and usage, and about some of the short-term utilitarianism and “the greatest good, for the greatest number” fringe ideological statements and sentiments of Pinchot that many seem prone to deliberately misunderstand.
Likewise, while there are certainly fringe Left groups that wave the flags of their own perversions of environmentalism (who fully deserve as much disdain and denouncement as the fringe Right groups that have actually managed to hijack much of the business centric economic conservatism on the other side of the discussion). This is not to say that there are not significant, non-extremist differences between progressivism and conservatism. Rather, this points out that the median ground and give/take between Progressive Environmentalism and Conservative Administration (which seems to be what you are depicting with your interpretation of conservatism) are much more clear cut and of a different nature than the arguments we typically witness in the public discourse of environmental issues.
Human understanding about the interconnected nature of systems within and between biomes and the species that compose these biomes has grown. Much of the short-term utilitarianism with regards to nature preservation and conservation in general has changed, and continues to change. Our understanding of the issues surrounding our natural environment and our interaction with that environment has grown over the last century. It would seem rather silly to ignore the advances in learning and understanding to promote concepts that often failed in their goals because of earlier prevailing ignorance and misunderstandings about the natural environment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Modern environmentalism is, and I mean this in the kindest way, a bastardization of the conservation of the Progressive Era.
Today’s devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and…the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.

2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelt’s efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN

3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem…..not people. “He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).

a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Francisco’s need for water took precedence. “With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections.” The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS

5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own.” Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain America’s position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.

7. Today, the meaning of ‘environmentalism’ has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the “Watermelon Movement:” green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: “Pinchot’s authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. This was the reason for TR’s return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.

Conservationism certainly differed from modern environmentalism, but the idea that conservationism was merely or predominantly about preserving national public assets for future private exploitation and private profits from that exploitation, is an inexcusable perversion of conservationism. That may arise from the conflations of TR concerns about sustainable public access and usage, and about some of the short-term utilitarianism and “the greatest good, for the greatest number” fringe ideological statements and sentiments of Pinchot that many seem prone to deliberately misunderstand.
Likewise, while there are certainly fringe Left groups that wave the flags of their own perversions of environmentalism (who fully deserve as much disdain and denouncement as the fringe Right groups that have actually managed to hijack much of the business centric economic conservatism on the other side of the discussion). This is not to say that there are not significant, non-extremist differences between progressivism and conservatism. Rather, this points out that the median ground and give/take between Progressive Environmentalism and Conservative Administration (which seems to be what you are depicting with your interpretation of conservatism) are much more clear cut and of a different nature than the arguments we typically witness in the public discourse of environmental issues.
Human understanding about the interconnected nature of systems within and between biomes and the species that compose these biomes has grown. Much of the short-term utilitarianism with regards to nature preservation and conservation in general has changed, and continues to change. Our understanding of the issues surrounding our natural environment and our interaction with that environment has grown over the last century. It would seem rather silly to ignore the advances in learning and understanding to promote concepts that often failed in their goals because of earlier prevailing ignorance and misunderstandings about the natural environment.

"Human understanding about the interconnected nature of systems within and between biomes and the species that compose these biomes has grown."




Bogus.

1. It's all made up based on a romantic fantasy.
Just one more tasty morsel in the buffet of soup to Left-wing nuts.
Here is your remedial:


a. In 1935, Oxford botanist Arthur Tansley invented the idea of the ‘ecosystem’…interaction of all of the living and nonliving part in an area. While it is “the basic unit of nature,” following Hegel, it is more fundamental than the individuals that make it up.

b. “Though the organisms may claim our prime interest, when we are trying to think fundamentally, we cannot separate them from their special environments, with which they form one physical system.” AG Tansley, Ecology 16 (3): 284–307

c. The view combined the balance and unity of nature; and statist at its core.




2. In 1946, G.E.Hutchinson advanced the idea that the ecosystem was a feedback loop of energy that keeps the system stable in the face of environmental disturbances: a healthy ecosystem is in balance, and recoils to balance when disturbed. Further, biological diversity promotes diversity.

a. This is the idea that demands acceptance, belief: diversity and balance means ecosystem health.

b. The enthusiasts were enraptured by the idea of the “oneness” of nature, and the pantheism of Thoreau, Rousseau, John Muir, ….the ecosystem became God!





3. Hold tight: here comes the uh-oh…it was theoretical. Immanuel Kant had insisted that science be based on empirical evidence. Instead…these ‘scientists’ had explained life on earth using a hypothetical construct that does not exist!!! No healthy, self-regulating ‘balanced econsystem’ has ever been found!

a. “What we call …an ecosystem is often a fiction, an arbitrary restriction of spatial boundaries, rather than a reflection…of species change.”
Simon Levin, Professor of Biology, Princeton, “Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons,” p.71 (1999).

b. “The concept of ‘The Balance of Nature,” so politically successful in the 1960’s and 1970’s, has been dismissed by ecological science….Unfortunately, however, many of the laws designed to regulate ecological resources were passed when “The Balance of Nature” paradigm was king….”
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=delpf


c. “Sixty years after the ecosystem idea surfaced in the scientific literature; after decades of dominance on university campuses; after thousands of books, articles, conferences, and monographs; scholars cannot agree on the most fundamental matters regarding ecosystems. They do not agree on what constitutes the core characteristics of ecosystems. They cannot say where ecosystems begin or end in space or time, or tell us when one ecosystem replaces another on the landscape. They cannot agree on how to locate ecosystems. They offer no generally accepted definitions or measures of health, integrity, or sustainability. The state of the science concerning the ecosystem notion and its attendant ideas provides little scientific justification for the radical change in public policy proposed by the Clinton administration.”
Ecosystem Management: | PERC ? The Property and Environmental Research Center Fitzsimmons, Allan K. 1999. Defending Illusions: Federal Protection of Ecosystems. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.




4. The idea of environmentalism is not science, it is political. Once the uninformed can be made to accept the unproven bogus concepts, biology is a religion. The concepts are designed to trump individuals and individual rights. It is a wonderful tool for the eco-fascist.



If you accept this ecosystem nonsense....heck, you'd even vote for Obama.

 

[Trakar]

Conservationism certainly differed from modern environmentalism, but the idea that conservationism was merely or predominantly about preserving national public assets for future private exploitation and private profits from that exploitation, is an inexcusable perversion of conservationism. That may arise from the conflations of TR concerns about sustainable public access and usage, and about some of the short-term utilitarianism and “the greatest good, for the greatest number” fringe ideological statements and sentiments of Pinchot that many seem prone to deliberately misunderstand.
Likewise, while there are certainly fringe Left groups that wave the flags of their own perversions of environmentalism (who fully deserve as much disdain and denouncement as the fringe Right groups that have actually managed to hijack much of the business centric economic conservatism on the other side of the discussion). This is not to say that there are not significant, non-extremist differences between progressivism and conservatism. Rather, this points out that the median ground and give/take between Progressive Environmentalism and Conservative Administration (which seems to be what you are depicting with your interpretation of conservatism) are much more clear cut and of a different nature than the arguments we typically witness in the public discourse of environmental issues.
Human understanding about the interconnected nature of systems within and between biomes and the species that compose these biomes has grown. Much of the short-term utilitarianism with regards to nature preservation and conservation in general has changed, and continues to change. Our understanding of the issues surrounding our natural environment and our interaction with that environment has grown over the last century. It would seem rather silly to ignore the advances in learning and understanding to promote concepts that often failed in their goals because of earlier prevailing ignorance and misunderstandings about the natural environment.

"Human understanding about the interconnected nature of systems within and between biomes and the species that compose these biomes has grown."



Bogus.

I commend your titular selection for its succinct accuracy. All that followed was indeed bogus

definition Bogus
Adjective
Not genuine or true; fake.
Synonyms
false - spurious - counterfeit - sham - dummy - mock

1. It's all made up based on a romantic fantasy.
Just one more tasty morsel in the buffet of soup to Left-wing nuts.
Here is your remedial:

a. In 1935, Oxford botanist Arthur Tansley invented the idea of the ‘ecosystem’…interaction of all of the living and nonliving part in an area. While it is “the basic unit of nature,” following Hegel, it is more fundamental than the individuals that make it up.

b. “Though the organisms may claim our prime interest, when we are trying to think fundamentally, we cannot separate them from their special environments, with which they form one physical system.” AG Tansley, Ecology 16 (3): 284–307

c. The view combined the balance and unity of nature; and statists at its core.

Conservative statists at that, in what is generally an idiomatically revisionist rant of no relation to the modern usage or application of these terms.

The Economist -

...

Like many of England's early Freudians, Tansley was a man of the left...And his beliefs put him in conflict with a powerful school of thought in the emerging science of ecology. American ecologists had developed the idea that plant communities were themselves organisms, and had a natural "climax" state towards which they tended,...These ideas had fed into the new philosophy of "holism" propounded by Jan Smuts,...The idea of a natural whole into which people had to fit in an appropriate way appealed to various conservative mindsets, both in Oxford, where Smuts was feted, and in South Africa, where it justified the idea that native people should not be tempted by, or allowed, the industrial development natural to the more evolved races. (One of Smuts's Oxford supporters was J.R.R. Tolkien, also born a South African; the idea of the world having a proper, settled way of being that industrialisation, and lesser species, can but threaten would be a powerful part of "The Lord of the Rings".).

Tansley was having none of this; the ecosystem, a term he coined in 1935, was his alternative. Like the human mind, it was dynamic and shaped by circumstances. It was composed not only of plants and animals, but also of their mineral substrates and the energy they used. And unlike the communities of holism, which had a pre-ordained endpoint, ecosystems were the product of the forces and flows that made them up. While there were typical ecosystems, there could also be novel ones; wherever living things came together there had to be an ecosystem of some sort, whether nature had ever envisaged it or not. People powerful enough to reshape, destroy and create ecosystems, whether by design or not, were responsible for a great deal of novelty along these lines. With the ecosystem, Tansley wrote, "human activity finds its proper place in ecology."

The term stuck. The ideas, rather less so. The ecosystem is ecology's unit of analysis, and an approach which takes the flow of energy and nutrients as the essence of what is going on—which looks at the system, not just the components—is often the norm...[/unquote]
DREAMING UP NATURE | More Intelligent Life

2. In 1946, G.E.Hutchinson advanced the idea that the ecosystem was a feedback loop of energy that keeps the system stable in the face of environmental disturbances: a healthy ecosystem is in balance, and recoils to balance when disturbed. Further, biological diversity promotes diversity.

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=facpub

(snip of straw red herrings)

3. Hold tight: here comes the uh-oh…it was theoretical. Immanuel Kant had insisted that science be based on empirical evidence. Instead…these ‘scientists’ had explained life on earth using a hypothetical construct that does not exist!!! No healthy, self-regulating ‘balanced econsystem’ has ever been found!

a. “What we call …an ecosystem is often a fiction, an arbitrary restriction of spatial boundaries, rather than a reflection…of species change.”
Simon Levin, Professor of Biology, Princeton, “Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons,” p.71 (1999).

And as any complete reading of the passage would quickly reveal, Levin is speaking of the "superorganism" (conservative favorite mentioned above) definition of eco-system and the over-arching Gaian mythology in general, not the manner in which either Tansley or modern science tend to use the term.

p. 71 Fragile Dominion - (Levin 1999)

b. “The concept of ‘The Balance of Nature,” so politically successful in the 1960’s and 1970’s, has been dismissed by ecological science….Unfortunately, however, many of the laws designed to regulate ecological resources were passed when “The Balance of Nature” paradigm was king….”
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=delpf

Which is hilarious in conjunction with the early statements regarding dynamic nature of ecosystems by Tegsley who coined the term, I can only presume that your argument is against how some individuals misuse and misunderstand the term rather than the way that the scientists, researchers, statute writers and epa enforcers understand and apply such terms? I'd have to see examples of exactly what you are referring to, and I'm sure their are instances of such just as there seems to be some confusion among some about decreasing tax rates and the resultant tax revenues,...but, I generally don't encounter those who engage in such practices.

c. “Sixty years after the ecosystem idea surfaced in the scientific literature; after decades of dominance on university campuses; after thousands of books, articles, conferences, and monographs; scholars cannot agree on the most fundamental matters regarding ecosystems. They do not agree on what constitutes the core characteristics of ecosystems. They cannot say where ecosystems begin or end in space or time, or tell us when one ecosystem replaces another on the landscape. They cannot agree on how to locate ecosystems. They offer no generally accepted definitions or measures of health, integrity, or sustainability. The state of the science concerning the ecosystem notion and its attendant ideas provides little scientific justification for the radical change in public policy proposed by the Clinton administration.”
Ecosystem Management: | PERC ? The Property and Environmental Research Center Fitzsimmons, Allan K. 1999. Defending Illusions: Federal Protection of Ecosystems. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

first you contrive an argument upon the botanist who coined the term and attempted to misrepresent him and his efforts, then you try to drive a wedge between the researchers and the advocacies by misrepresenting an author's intended position and statements, and then you end with a political rant against the science and how it is being used to the detriment who would prefer to leave the implications of the research and findings in this field of endeavor out of public policy debate and decisions.

sounds rather argumentum ad consequentiam to me.