TOWARD A GREEN CONSERVATISM
If You Don't Love Pleistocene Park, You Need a Soul Transplant
The excesses of eco-cultists need no elaboration here. We have all laughed at Rush Limbaugh's jokes over the ever-proliferating roster of spotted owl subspecies. Yet even as we mock the Marxist-Gramscian-Luddite wing of the green movement, let us not forget that preserving nature is at root a conservative cause.
I was reminded of this fact while reading a National Geographic News article of May 17 about a project called Pleistocene Park — an attempt by Russian scientists to create an Ice Age ecosystem in a remote corner of Siberia. (Stefan Lovgren, "Pleistocene Park Underway: Home for Reborn Mammoths?", NationalGeographic.com, May 17, 2005)
Ice Age Game Preserve
Ecologist Sergei Zimov is building this unique wildlife refuge in the frigid Russian republic of Yakutiya, located some 93 miles south of the Arctic Ocean. In an area about 62 miles square, the park will duplicate conditions that prevailed 10,000 years ago, when woolly mammoths, woolly rhinos, giant bison, primitive horses, elk, yaks, cave lions and wolves ran wild in the region.
Zimov is transforming the moss-covered tundra back into meadows, larch forest and willow shrubland. "All plants that were there in the Pleistocene epoch are preserved there today," Zimov told National Geographic.
To the park's natural population of moose and reindeer, Zimov has added wild Yakutian horses — which are closely related to Pleistocene horses — as well as musk oxen, wolves, bears, lynxes and many more. Sometime soon, he plans to release Canadian bison and Siberian tigers in the park.
If scientists succeed in cloning the woolly mammoth — whose frozen remains abound in the Siberian ice — Pleistocene Park will likely become home to these shaggy monsters as well.
Now if that doesn't bring out the green in even the staunchest Republican, I don't know what will.
Battle for the Biosphere
Of course, it's rather annoying to learn that "progressive" billionaire Ted Turner also wants to create a Pleistocene game park on one of his ranches in New Mexico. But isn't that all the more reason for conservatives to try to beat Turner and his ilk to the punch?
If we're going to reengineer the biosphere, let's make sure that some responsible Burkeans are running the project: greencons, if you will. The alternatives are simply too hideous to contemplate.
On June 27, 2002, FrontPage published a noteworthy article by John Zmirak titled, "Confessions of a Green Conservative." It is worth revisiting. Green conservatism is an issue for the future.
11 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Pleistocene Park -
I can't wait to watch the political battles when the "Young Earth" creationists take on the "Old Earth" creationists over the vitally important subject "Have the Wooly Mammoths been extinct for 20,000 years or did God deliberately exclude them from Noah's Ark?"
Perhaps conservatives would be happier with "Garden of Eden Park" where animatronic snakes tempt patrons to eat of the "Tree of Knowledge".
Seriously, if people are willing to build these parks at their own expense I have no problem. I might even be willing to pay a substantial admission to see the Pleistocene era up close. However, if these are to be financed with public funds then I have to say no.
If people want these (admittedly) really cool theme parks then they must be willing to pay for them out of their own pockets. Zmirak's "green conservative" column suggests otherwise, i.e. that there are inherent values in such parks and that they should be created at public expense.
Somehow, I missed the "public parks" clause in the Constitution.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general *** Welfare*** of the United States
***Welfare*** welfare in the time of the founders meant n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution, however, helping the "truly" needy squares with the Constitution, and so does funding for parks.
P.S. FIRST CLASS AS USUAL MR. POE! IT'S GOOD AND HEALTHY TO LET THE MIND WONDER ABOUT WONDROUS THINGS SUCH AS THESE, AND I THANK YOU!
DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS TIME IN THE SOUTHWEST WHEN A RHINOCEROS THE SIZE OF A GIRAFFE ROAMED?--AND I RECENTLY SAW A SHOW ABOUT SIBERIAN TIGERS AND HUMANS HUNTING IN THE SAME TERRITORY IN RELATIVE PEACE. THE PROBLEMS STARTED WHEN A HUMAN TOOK SOME OF THE TIGERS WILD HOG KILL, AND LEFT HIS SCENT--THE TIGER THEN STARTED HUNTING THE MAN RELENTLESSLY OVER THE OFFENSE, AND NO OTHER HUNTER WOULD HELP THE MAN KILL THE TIGER, OR LET HIS SCENT NEAR THEM.--ONE DOES NOT OFFEND A SIBERIAN TIGER IN SIBERIA!
I guess that those who "need" a public park out weigh those who "need" a job, or those who "need" their tax money, or those who "need" a new oil refinery, or those who "need" wood.
Needs are unlimited and if used as a standard for law would lead to unlimited government. "Welfare" as the Founders saw it was not something that weighed one man's needs against another. It meant the things that were common to all men like criminal law and national defense.
Under the supposedly "modern" standard the government could kill some of its citizens if the rest needed it. After all, the German people needed to kill the Jews just as the Russian people needed to kill the kulaks.
Throughout the history of civilized mankind, there has been the private funding of public needs.
As soon as this Republic was created the people started demanding that their needs be addressed. One of their first demands was that the federal government do more to promote trade with England, and Europe.
Thank God past generations spent public money on our parks. Read up on what some soulless, Godless capitalists wanted to do with Central Park, and the Grand Canyon--Thank God for Teddy Roosevelt, and some others.
Some public funding is necessary for a civilization, it has just gotten out of hand with these entitlements--TO MANY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE LOST THE CONCEPT OF THE JOY OF-- GOD BLESS THE CHILD THAT GOT HIS OWN!
Hit It! You Go Girl!
Them that’s got shall get
Them that’s not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, papa may have
But God bless the child that’s got his own
That’s got his own
Yes, the strong gets more
While the weak ones fade
Empty pockets don’t ever make the grade
Mama may have, papa may have
But God bless the child that’s got his own
That’s got his own
Money, you’ve got lots of friends
Crowding round the door
When you’re gone, spending ends
They don’t come no more
Rich relations and government give
Crust of bread and such
You can help yourself
But don’t take too much
Mama may have, papa may have
But God bless the child that’s got his own
That’s got his own
Mama may have, papa may have
But God bless the child that’s got his own
That’s got his own
He just worry ’bout nothin’
Cause he’s got his own--Billie holiday / arthur herzog jr.
When I posted this item, I wondered what sorts of comments it would draw.
Now I know; sarcastic jabs at creationists and grumbling over public funding for parks.
I must confess to a certain… disappointment.
I guess my point about government parks was missed. When the park becomes a government project the theme will be determined politically.
If "Green Conservatism" supports publc funding of theme parks then how does if differ from "Green Leftism"? Or has the argument between Left and Right been reduced to who shall control an omnipotent government?
Apparently the issue of public vs private ownership has been resolved in favor of public ownership. That means that the new fundamental question of politics is "Who gets the goodies?...My gang or yours?"
I thought that when Reagan became president we had finally done a 180 on the expansion of government power. Its seems that we have done a 360 instead.
Bob Meyer - "heh" on the wooly mammoth / Noah's Ark dig, and "bravo" on the public parks not in the Constitution thing.
Rightminded - The preamble to the Constitution says "provide" defense and "promote" welfare. The Democratic Party has reversed this.
Richard Poe - Siberia's a little out of the way to visit intentionally. I would like to see more work on habitat restoration though, in all areas.
oops... left off a sentence. How about an effort to restore the marshlands of Iraq?
When properly done, at the right level of government, ""parks" most certainly can be funded with public funds.
I would add that, properly done, certain kinds of parks added to certain types of areas could enhance the area significantly!
Mr. Meyer writes: "If `Green Conservatism' supports publc funding of theme parks then how does it differ from `Green Leftism?'"
[Sigh]
Mr. Meyer, first of all, Green Conservatism does not even exist yet, except as a gleam in the eye of a handful of people. So it can be whatever we decide to make of it.
As for public funding of parks, I am agnostic on that question. My citation of John Zmirak should not be taken as an endorsement of that particular idea, but rather as a nod to Zmirak for daring to bring up the subject of Green Conservatism at all.
My point is that we need to move beyond the reflexive dismissal of ecological concerns which has long typified pop-conservative commentary.
Humanity does indeed face serious environmental threats, such as the depletion of the ocean's fisheries and the poisoning of our drinking water.
Leftists cannot be trusted to address such problems in a dispassionate and scientific way. For them, environmentalism is just another excuse to enslave and abuse their fellow men.
When I wrote that the alternatives to green conservatism were "too hideous to contemplate," I illustrated this point with a link to an article called "Rural Cleansing" in the Wall Street Journal.
It reveals the true and ultimate agenda of the New Age "green" movement, which is to systematically phase out human occupation of the countryside and herd us all into tiny urban centers whose population density has been artificially elevated to Soylent Green-like levels.
In order to avoid such horrors, responsible conservatives, in my opinion, must spend less time poking fun at "tree-hugging wackos" and more time getting involved in the environmental movement.
We cannot entrust the stewardship of our land, air and water to a cult of murderous fanatics who despise the human race.
Post a Comment
<< Home