Elephants and Ivory…the case for Conservationism against Environmentalism

1

November 5, 2016 by JImbo

https://fee.org/articles/elephants-and-ivory/

We have a term for what these people are doing. It’s not “environmentalism.” No, as hunters, fishermen and outdoorsmen we call it “conservationism.”

What’s the difference?

Public vs Private property basically.

Or, put in words my readers know well by now… Socialism vs Liberty.

Well, “Environmentalism” is the socialist ideal that everything belongs to everyone. Therefore, we all have the same right to it and need to protect it. Environmentalism is “protecting nature from humanity.”

Note the inherent view that humanity is evil.

“Conservationism” is the liberty-based idea that the individual and local community OWN a resource.As they are the ones to enjoy it, they are the ones that will be directly affected by its ruin. Therefore, Conservationists have more direct incentive to protest their resource…or not. Conservationism is about “saving natural resources for the enjoyment of humanity.”

Nature thrives; Humanity thrives.

Some of the most polluted places on the planet are socialist countries. The USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. They are polluted FAR beyond anything in “Western” (freedom oriented) countries. In fact in Venezuela they ruined their economy so bad that the endangered animals in the zoos STARVED TO DEATH and been EATEN BY CITIZENS.

Conservationism works better. The individual or group of individuals is better at protecting natural resources. They have an incentive to protect them as they see them as a finite asset.

This isn’t a new theory. I’ve touched on the “Tragedy of the Commons” theory before. If you need an example, just ask yourself why YOUR bathroom is clean and the public restrooms rarely are.

Not the privately owned businesses. I mean the unattended public restrooms. Whereas you will clean your own bathroom because it’s your property, you won’t take a trip out to the one at the local park or highway rest stop on your own time. It’s not YOURS, even though in theory it is EVERYONE’s.

The same is true of wildlife. Fish hatcheries and private ponds don’t run out of fish. Whole SEAS can run out of things like whales, but private property is never over-fished.

Why is that?

The owners of the waterways stop fishing because they know when the fish are getting low. They protect their property.

The fishermen in the ocean don’t “own” it, so have little reason to care. Since there is no limit on access to it, one fisherman not fishing doesn’t stop the NEXT guy from taking more. If one guy opts out of a public resource, he has no control over what other people do and just loses out.

The same is true of pollution. If only one country or a dozen countries stop polluting, the rest of the world continues. Those treaties on pollution always fail because they omit many key countries. Kyoto for example let China and India pollute all they wanted…for political reasons. So, while the “Western” countries are bound by expensive regulations that cost jobs and living conditions, the other countries are polluting more and more.

China has overtaken the USA as the most polluting country in the world. India isn’t far behind. They are less efficient too, so they don’t even get the same output that we do for the same pollution.

Private property, free enterprise and local control of resources is the key. Conservationism respects everything our country was founded on. We as individuals and local communities have to make the difference. Global “efforts” are doomed to fail.

The fear-mongering aside, let’s examine what “Climate Change” for example teaches us.

You need to answer five questions before you rush to respond to an “ecological disaster.” Let’s “climate change” as an example.

  1. Is it (climate change) happening?
  2. Is it man made?
  3. Is it a bad thing?
  4. Can we “fix” it?
  5. Can we “fix” it for less than adapting to it would cost?

 

1- Most sources say probably. There are disputes and it’s by no means overwhelming. Weather DOES change by it’s very nature. Do we have enough data to say for sure?

2, For example, the planet has megacycles much like the solar year. Just as we have hot (summer) and cold (winter) seasons, the Earth is hotter and cooler at times.

When there was no snow during the dinosaur periods, it was “summer.” During the ice ages it’s “winter.” Right now there are ice caps and they should be receding into the “summer” period of Earth’s next megacycle.

3. Was the Earth “bad” for life during the warmer periods? Or was it “bad” for life during the ice ages? Would it be “bad” for the Russians who can then grow crops in Siberia?

In fact, crops around the world will grow better with higher temperatures and more CO2 in the air. That’s basic biology. “Good” and “bad” depends on who you ask.

4. There are some harebrained plans out there to “fix” things, but none of them are even successfully modeled, let alone tested or proven. If this IS a natural Earth megacycle, then it would be like trying to stop “summer” from coming and trying to live in denial that “spring” will never end. That’s silly.

5. If it IS happening, if it IS man-made, if it IS bad, if it IS fixable… can we afford it? Is it easier to destroy our economy to TRY to stop CO2 in the HOPES that it’s going to stop a rise of water that might be happening?

Or is it cheaper to just have people move inland?

Lots of areas that used to be dry land are now underwater and vice versa. People adapt. Life goes on.

Projects that large would require a huge level of investment (taxes) and sacrifice. Much of it would be involuntary (as many don’t even support the theory of it happening in the first place.)

When the Chinese built the Three Gorges Dam, they flooded whole valleys full of villages to make room for it. The people didn’t get a real choice. “Move or die. It’s for the Greater Good.”

They didn’t have private property rights. As EVERYONE in the country also “owned” their valley and homes…the majority NOT living in the valley told the people in the valley to “Move or die.”

That’s Progress. That’s Socialism.

Individual rights are better for the environment. That is Conservationism. You hunt the same property year after year, you know that property. You fish the same spots, you know how the fishing is. If you camp in an area, you clean up the trash after yourself.

As the article shows, elephant herds that are owned tend to grow. Those in socialist areas tend to disappear. The local villages and individuals take care of their property. Those in public “parks” are often poached by people who don’t give a crap.

Think about the difference the next time a tree hugger tells you that you can’t hunt, fish or drive a big pickup.

Who REALLY understands nature?

Who REALLY appreciates it?

Who protects it throughout their lives, on their own property, with their own money and labor?

Environmentalists are humans who have humanity.

Conservationists are humans who love nature.

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Elephants and Ivory…the case for Conservationism against Environmentalism

  1. Anonymous says:

    I vote Conservation!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: