Saturday, October 30, 2010
Tim Ball: Biodiversity Replaces Climate Change As The Weapon For Political Control
For example, climate change is part of the larger battle between religion and science that essentially began when Darwin published The Origin of the Species in 1859 (151st anniversary on November 24). It is not coincidence that books like Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene or The God Delusion are on bestseller lists. Stephen Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design claims “God was not needed to create the universe.”
It’s illogical for purely logical people to claim it’s impossible to create something out of nothing. They constantly avoid the problem of who produced the matter for the big bang? It’s ongoing and at the centre of the current debate triggered by the new paradigm of environmentalism. If you have no God then there is a problem with the presence and existence of humanity. In Dawkin’s view Darwin virtually replaces God, but that creates a dilemma. Fundamental to Darwin’s views are the idea of survival of a species. As Herbert Spencer said, “This survival of the fittest… is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’.”
This creates a paradox. Humans exist, but they are not part of the natural order and their success is not Darwinian, but unnatural. But we can’t have a God either.
An underlying theme of environmentalism is anti-humanity and anti-evolution. Accordingly, human progress is not a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration. Humans are exploiting and ravaging nature, essentially as a parasite that must be eliminated. Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, said, “Environmentalism intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to liberate nature from human exploitation.” Similarly, David Graber, a research biologist said, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Is this were Prince Philip got his idea? “In 1988, Britain’s Prince Philip expressed the wish that, should he be reincarnated, he would want to be a deadly virus that would reduce world population.” So, as Prince Virus you would decide who lives and dies.
Many issues emerge from the anti-humanity view, all showing how humans are destroying, nature, the planet, and all its components. The ideas were combined with sustainable development at the 1994 world conference on population in Cairo. Here it is in ‘bureaucratese’ from Section 3.1, “The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, adopted by the international community at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, call for patterns of development that reflect the new understanding of these and other intersectoral linkages.
There is also general agreement that unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation as well as to the reinforcement of social inequities and of poverty with the above- mentioned consequences for demographic parameters.” It’s a bizarre mix linking overpopulation with greedy behavior and resource exploitation to the solutions of reducing population, weakening economies and redistributing the wealth.
A short list of the issues that have been touted include, desertification, ozone destruction, acid rain, deforestation, acidification, extinction, coral bleaching, killer bee invasions, frog deformation, over-fishing, polar ice disappearance; the list is virtually endless.
The latest one is gaining traction because the United Nations declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity.
It’s the agency chosen by those with a one-world government agenda. Elaine Dewar, in her book Cloak of Green asked Maurice Strong if he was a “One Worlder.” He replied, “I have said for years the world needs a world system of governance.” He chose it for his climate agenda because as he said, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” Biodiversity is an ideal replacement for climate change; an emotional issue that few people know much about. The fear factor is amplified by the argument that all animals and plants are interdependent. If one species disappears then the entire chain is in jeopardy. It’s an extension of the Great Chain of Being view first proposed by Aristotle. It underpinned the Western view that ordered everything from inanimate rocks through animate plants, animals, humans, to Angels, then God.
Wikipedia is not a good source but it does reflect thinking and explains why biodiversity is a suitable vehicle for the latest environmental scare.
It says, “Biodiversity is the degree of variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or an entire planet.” But then they say, “Biodiversity is one measure of the health of ecosystems.” How? It’s estimated we’ve only identified about 35 percent of the species. Just recently 200 species were discovered in Papua, New Guinea. The lead scientist said there are, “large areas of New Guinea that are pretty much unexplored biologically.”
Oceans are a bigger problem. “Biologists worldwide may have to start re-evaluating their estimates of the number of species on Earth, since expeditions documenting the oceans’ tiniest species have revealed shocking diversity: in the tens of millions of species, at least, and according to one researcher “closer to a billion”.
Wiki says, “Rapid environmental changes typically cause extinctions.” Ah, the climate change issue is still alive. But, “99.9 percent of species that have existed on Earth are now extinct.” What’s the problem; extinctions are normal? Is the current rate of extinction higher than normal? How did so many extinctions occur without the interlinked ecosystem collapsing? The truth is you can tell little from the fossil record. It’s estimated 15 million in a species is necessary for it to show in the fossil record. Being able to produce viable offspring identifies species. How can you determine that when only bones and teeth survive?
Biodiversity is just another attempt to exploit people’s fears and lack of knowledge.
at 7:46 AM