Logic Times

A Lesson in Conservation

Commentary by Aslan, 01/07/06, 11:56pm. Comments (6)

0.0105%

(2,000/19,000,000)

In this number, we see Environmentalism clash with Conservation once again. In the Environmentalist world, mankind is not worth 0.0105%, whereas in the world of Conservation, 0.0105% actually is conservation, and damn good conservation, too.

0.0105%

The question of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge comes down to this number - the 2000 acres out of 19,000,000 that make up ANWR proposed for oil exploration. Very much like our inability to grasp the budgetary billions that are tossed around in congressional appropriation subcommittees, our minds have difficulty grasping how small 0.0105% really is.

Theodore Roosevelt, the father of Conservation, said in 1907:

"In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight...The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life."

Nothing could better fit the idea of "utilizing and conserving" than to set aside an area the size of South Carolina while an area the size of a golf course is developed for the far-reaching geopolitical and economic benefit of 291,000,000 people. Both goals – sustaining nature and sustaining mankind – are simultaneously achieved.

If drilling in ANWR were a question of developing all 19,000,000 acres of land, there are some who would still support the effort, recognizing the staggering importance of energy independence in a world where massive stockpiles of oil are controlled by Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and duplicitous Saudi sheiks. In such a debate, wiser people would of course argue that we must maintain some percentage of the refuge for future generations. If the response to that reasonable appeal was to give back 99.9895% to the caribou and to nature, who could possibly argue? Apparently, madmen who think mankind is not worth 0.0105%...and those in government who crave madmen's dollars.

Comments

1: antibush

January 7, 2006 9:13am EST

You are a hypocrite. In No Pain, No Gain, you talk about how wonderful high gas prices are. Now you are arguing for drilling in ANWR. Make up your mind.

{Aslan: There is no conflict whatsoever. The No Pain, No Gain commentary makes an observation about the effect of high gas prices on consumer behavior and that I support that "effect" (alternative fuels). Nowhere in the No Pain, No Gain article do I support higher gas prices themselves. This essay calls into question the logic of refusing to develop less than 1/10th of 1% of a remote area of the country because it is harmful to the environment. The only logical conclusion in that argument is that mankind does not have a place in the environment. The ANWR drilling project IS precisely conservation at its best. This proves environmentalists are not conservationists.}

2: Paul

January 8, 2006 1:29pm EST

I like the way you have presented this information. The analogies are quite clear as to the insignificance of the area we're dealing with and yet the hype would lead us to believe it's a significant portion of Alaska's ANWR that is being "threatened.” It seems as though I have read of the Alaskan pipeline actually being a "boon" instead of a "bust" for local wildlife.

I just recently bought 40 acres that has a capped and plugged well on it. I was living across the road when the well was drilled and haven't seen anything of the "destruction" predicted by the environmental wackos. In fact, the land is completely reclaimed and has been incorporated into the hay meadow as can be seen in the attached photo.

{Aslan: Look at the gurgling pools of oil all over that land! BTW, thanks for showing me the correct acronym for ANWR – oops. Made the change.}

3: Peter Bland

January 8, 2006 4:10pm EST

Dude, nice post. Libs have a hard time understanding facts a lot of times because they do not care to break it down. Their feelings often get in the way. Here is a little blurb I found from a Ms. Mendoza in the AP: Here is the original post (WARNING! I like to use salty language.)

{Aslan: Consider readers duly warned! That said, liberals are all about emotion, not logic – hence the Logic Times banner artwork (no, that is not a long-lost work of Dali, but the handiwork of yours truly…)

4: Larry Horacek

January 8, 2006 4:32pm EST

Thanks for leading the horses to water and even putting their muzzles into the water for a drink. Coupled with almost 30 years of data regarding the (non) affect of drilling on wildlife around Prudhoe Bay (dare I mention that the "threatened" caribou herds have actually thrived in that area during the past three decades), your magnificent series of comparisons exposes the anti-drilling environmentalist for what they are - illogical and out of touch with reality. Since they are solidly backed by our media and so many liberal democrats, what does that say about them? !

Simple and to the point - well done, Aslan.

{Aslan: Thanks, Larry. Caribou populations have risen since the pipeline was built.

Look at the pointy-headed data, which acknowledges the increase, then offers weak reasons it may be bad.}

5: thomaspaul

January 8, 2006 6:36pm EST

It is said that humans are born with a "search for God" imprinted in their souls. It is the Great Void which cannot be avoided: either we find a way to fill it or we begin losing hope that our existence has any meaning. If we reject the God who put the void there, then we must fill it with something else. As per our design, the more that "something else" is bigger than us, the better it feels; and so it goes until one finds God, for God is the only one who can perfectly fill it.

An environmental extremist is one who has filled his or her void with "protecting the environment" at all costs. This cause is their "stand in" for God, so it is perfectly understandable that they attach themselves passionately to it. On the one hand it gives them a reason for being; on the other, removing it re-opens an empty abyss.

{Aslan: Beautifully said.}

6: Evntprdcr

January 16, 2006 9:44pm EST

There was much useful information included in the article, but the issue is simply this, "will we resolve to put aside as unavailable and pristine" spaces that are an example of God's work?" or will we forever figure out reasons why it is okay to violate these reserves. Why not drill in the Vatican?

{Aslan: I am a ardent conservationist who intensely dislikes fossil fuels, which I consider an insult to Man's ingenuity. I have even identified the value of high fuel prices in motivating consumers to demand change from producers (No Pain, No Gain). Nontheless, the ANWR project is not the Vatican or even Des Moines. It is the essence of responsible conservation at its best, a far better choice, if you ask me, that continued offshore drilling options. I agree with the sentiment, but the sentiment ignores the number: 0.0105%. That IS conservation.}