Such was the question arisen in my mind after deeper contemplation on today’s article in the Daily Herald entitled “Conservation groups await federal decision on polar bear listing”.
If polar bears are threatened by thinning sea ice due to global warming it would seem innocent enough to list them as endangered, right? The innocence evaporates however in light of the exponential growth in political maneuvering aimed at justifying increased regulation and control over industry, production, the energy market and consumer choice. Such regulation reeks of the decay of Socialism. The key to unlocking the usually locked doors of prudence of citizens normally concerned with encroachments on their freedom has been to establish in these same citizens’ minds an unbalanced concern about something, e.g. the environment, that will cause them to overlook the more immediate threats to their own well being, especially regarding the continued protection of their own rights and freedoms. While the environment certainly does affect all its inhabitants in the short and long term for good and bad, the promotion of certain environmental concerns over the economic and spiritual needs of mankind certainly needs to be weighed in the balance. Similar scare tactics have been effectively used by the American Cancer society to appropriate ever more government money towards cancer research and screening by scaring the public with increased awareness of the realities of death. Forget the fact that people have always been dying from cancer, we must act now at all costs to prevent death from ever occurring again! Of course those having recently lost a loved one to cancer are emotionally charged to spend other people’s precious tax monies on such a vain quest to thwart mortality itself. Such a vain quest mocks the ultimate purpose of our earthly existence that necessitates that you can’t have really live and afterwards have incorruption and immortality unless you first have corruption or death of the body.
While it may become more indisputable that global warming is occurring, it is harder to see how the inference of global warming being not only attributable to man and his production of greenhouse gases but somehow also able to be arrested by the same humankind whose emissions have time and time again been dwarfed by volcanoes and sea algea alike could be truly objectively rather than politically motivated. Nor is the recent increased interest and scientific inquiry in studying the planet Venus and theories surrounding a supposed evolution of its atmosphere from previously more earthlike conditions to the present state of severe planetary conditions attributed in part to the greater concentration on Venus of greenhouse gases that discourage the escape of heat and radiation absorbed from the sun. Such inquiry gives credence to the question itself of whether science can ever truly be objective posed by Werner Heisenberg and requoted in the book “Nature Exposed to Our Method of Questioning” by Amy Ione:
|“…we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”|
My objection to the polar bear being listed as “endangered” however is not against the credence of a real possibility of their extinction in the near future but to the very real and more dangerous political leverage such a listing would give some politicians towards further chaining and regulating our livelihoods and its dependence on industry. Why? Because they will now say that greenhouse gases emitted by men are causing the extinction of the polar bear! Forget the more probable likelihood of global warming being much less attributable to mankind than they would like us to believe. The mere juxtaposition of the two concepts is enough for such parties to use such an “endangered” animal listing event to further stoke the emotional fires that might lead to the irrational and hasty judgement of viewing one as a preventable cause of the other. What is too often forgotten is to ask the question of where the humanity is in sacrificing humanity yet again for an environmentalist weighted agenda. It’s not just a question this time of whether the timber industry can be trusted with the stewardship of our forests when a spotted owl may be at stake. It’s an even deeper question from a philosophical and religious standpoint of whether the earth was made for man or whether man was made for the earth. On the one hand you have the answer from the Lord of the Sabbath that man wasn’t made for the sabbath or for the Earth but that both were made for man’s benefit. On the other hand you have the age old arguments that define man on a very different scale that reduce him to a demeaning state of coexistence with animals instead of exalting him with the humbling role of a steward over creation.
It isn’t the first time either in history that such a conflict of diametrically opposed views have waged war. The American Indian himself may provide evidence of how a people fell from industrious habits to the idle depravity that typifed many such natives. Many early explorers noted the admirable coexistence and lack of waste in the use of the environment by the native Americans. These same early explorers however noted a laziness and more animal like existence among these same savages. If some sources are to be believed, the ancestors of these same Indians may have once been a more glorious and industrious people worthy of even further admiration. Their once held industry and prosperity maintaining them above mere animal-like existence may have fallen victim to the same war being waged in our day between the aforementioned parties with diametrically opposed priorities concerning mankind’s role and status amidst god’s creation.