The Greatest Environmental Threat Ever

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

The environmental movement needs to be urgently informed concerning a new threat to the planet. This assault on nature does not come from without but from within the very people who are attempting to "save" the Earth.

The grave danger is something more horrendous and subtle than global warming. The new contamination of Gaea could not only destroy hundreds of ecosystems but could possibly end all life permanently.

This revolting scheme is carefully planned by a dark entity urging to destroy everything dear to tree lovers. The creature is far worse than human beings, more threatening than a meteor slamming into the Earth, and greedier than a strip-mining industrialist.

If you haven’t guessed by now….it’s…the Giant Panda!

The environmental movement for years has been deceived by this leech on the globe. The animal appears so cute and cuddly that we have fallen prey to its coercive manipulation. Behind those adorable jet black eyes, a monster dwells.

Environmentalists constantly attempt to preserve "natural" ecology. Of course, this implies that human beings aren’t part of nature. Everything else is a part of nature to them. A coyote can kill its prey. A woodchuck can cut down a tree. But suddenly when a human does either, a great ecological "crime" occurs. The act is a supposed malicious unnatural abomination that must be stopped.

The human species has once again trampled upon natural ecology. The Giant Panda only exists because of human involvement. It could not survive in a natural selection process. The main purpose of any species is to reproduce. Those which can reproduce the best survive best; while those who cannot become extinct.

Giant Panda Bears only mate 2 to 3 days a year! This species is not meant to survive naturally. Only by human desire could these environmentally deceptive animals manage further generations. Yet, environmentalists still support this creature. Every time a panda might be pregnant the media reacts as if the birth of the new Messiah was at hand.

Liberal Environmentalists care more about unborn pandas than unborn humans! Their passion has been horribly misguided.

The Giant Panda is not the only animal guilty of human protectionism from the forces of nature. There is a whole list of spotted owls, polar bears, rainforest critters, etc.

Ecologists act like packrats while at the same time attempting to discuss a natural ecology. Specie extinctions are almost always blamed on humans. However, species have been going extinct for a long time. So how does an environmentalist make the judgment call of what specie is to prevail? We’re saving the Giant Panda but who says that the Giant Panda wouldn’t die out in the environment anyway.

Humans are hardly responsible for most specie extinctions. For some reason, the wooly mammoth is gone from the Ice Age and the human still around. One reason that humans are still around is due to our adaptive abilities. Human beings are present almost everywhere. We don’t need a specific habitat to live. We only need our brains to adjust to that habitat. Our technology and industrialization only benefits our survival but naturally humans are prevalent everywhere.

Many environmentalists talk about a certain balance that maintains our life. The human specie has been through periods of extreme cold and has existed in the most desert-like environments long before modern technology. We don’t need a specific balance to survive. When circumstances change, humans quickly adapt, unlike spotted owls, panda bears, etc.

Natural selection picks out animals most adapted to survival. We invade lots of habitats, but that does not lead to mass extinction of every species. Think of deer and squirrels. Their habitats have been entirely changed, yet they’re all over the place around cities or sometimes inside cities! The difference between the Panda and the deer is a difference of adaptive ability. Americans probably kill greater numbers of deer in a single year than decades of panda poaching combined.

Deer reproduce quickly and respond to their environment. Pandas on the other hand do not. They are not adaptive. Their reproduction process is horrendously slow. Natural selection has decided that this creature is to die out.

This same issue concerns the rainforest. Doomsday environmentalists create unrealistic mathematical models of how many undiscovered species will be extinct per certain acres of rainforest cut down. No folks, I’m not kidding. They actually count species to be extinct that no one has ever seen.

Now, these species seem to be very concentrated. If you can chop down a hundred acres of rainforest and take out an entire species, a few conclusions can be derived by a reasonable person:

  1. This species was not very big. They only occupied a small area.
  2. This species is not biologically successful, as it cannot reproduce beyond this area.
  3. This species is not going to survive in the long run of natural selection and evolution anyway.

These species will probably die out. In order to preserve ecology, you have to allow what will naturally happen. Humans preserving species in itself is not a common "natural" evolution of events

The panda bear is only preserved thank to capitalist zoo exploitation. I can’t believe environmentalists didn’t see it before, but now it’s obvious. This animal is not natural. This creature is a tool of corporate exploitation. The panda is on this earth to create profits and make young human children happy. Tree huggers can’t have this…

Now that you know the treacherous and deceptive essence of the beast, I can continue about the doomsday rolling ever closer. The most vile gluttonous creatures on Earth known as Americans consume at most about 6 pounds of food a day, about 2,200 pounds of food a year. The larger giant pandas waste up to 40 pounds of bamboo per day in a 10- to 16-hour shift of endless habitat destruction totaling almost 15,000 pounds of bamboo per year!

At least as horrid as human beings may be in the eyes of greens, they rest for hours upon hours a week. However, these pandas are restless logging machines pushing unimaginable hours.

The human specie renews some resources with replanting. These pandas care even less for the environment. Not for one second do they stop to consider the devastation produced by their greed to live.

Conservationists have been attempting to increase the number of pandas for ages. Currently, there are about 1,600 hundred pandas in the wild. If the movement manages to increase this number by a thousand, an additional 15 million pounds of virgin forests will be destroyed each year! Yes, virgin forests! We cannot stand for this brutalization and ravishment of bamboo purity. Think of all the little insects and birds which will lose their homes thanks to these capitalist bears’ rape of ecology.

Reintroducing the panda is an environmental travesty. Environmentalists need to realize that reintroducing a species is in fact once again changing the ecology. If we could clone dinosaurs, should they be reintroduced to their native habitats? Their reintroduction would cause more harm than preserving ecology. Similarly, it is not wise to place old species into an environment in which they have not been present for decades.

The dilemma does not stop here. Using the "hockey stick" theory to show that something which doesn’t appear to be a problem will actually spell Armageddon for the planet can be applied to pandas as well. It’s amazing what you can do with advances in science to reach this level of truth and clarity about the environment.

These pandas may seem to someone with common sense as having small numbers. This is distant from reality. As soon as the panda number reaches 3,000 an explosion of the population will occur. An outright panda growth of exponential proportions is on the brink of occurring. The cubs will reproduce like maddened demons searching the land for resources to destroy. Their calling eyes will turn blood red with enraged tempers quelled only by viewing uprooted forests and endless flames scattering the bamboo into clouds of volcanic ash.

I currently predict the panda population to reach 10 billion in the next twenty years. This means that the pandas will be consuming 150 trillion pounds of bamboo per year. The world’s forests will be entirely depleted within 50 years of today! The horror is unimaginable. They won’t just stop at the bamboo. These monstrosities will adapt to eat other trees, natural animals, human beings, and even rocks.

In the end, the panda epidemic will result in the complete obliteration of the Earth. Yes….the pandas will actually eat the entire planet until we are nothing but empty space in the universe.

Of course, this outcome is ridiculous just like most outcomes predicted by environmentalists. Every environmental essay requires at least one paragraph of psycho-babble and what better place than at the end.

Consistency is something not often found in the environmental field: One must save animals which destroy bamboo forests but despise human improvement; one must preserve ecology by systematically inserting species that have become foreign to the region.

The goal of the environmental movement with the panda is contradictory. Everything regarding species is a relative judgment call. No one knows for sure whether panda bears are a natural progression or an evolutionary abnormality doomed to fade.

Any choice made by a logging company or a conservationist alters the natural ecology. Environmentalists change the environment just as much. No one will know for sure what a supposed "natural" ecology is if environmentalists keep preserving species meant to die.

For humans to begin their lives (which I happen to enjoy since I’m….well human), dinosaurs had to first die out. If it was up to the environmentalists, this would have never happened. They would have preserved the dinosaurs and prevented the naturally occurring rise of humans. So is the dieing out of dinos good? Yes because I get to live. What about the panda? I’m not sure and anyone who tells you how the ecology should be is simply a central planner of nature. They know nothing about nature. They only know how they would like to have it look or work.

Nobody knows the best combination of species and those who tell you different are certainly steering you in their vision of the world, not an objective truth on environmental health and prosperity.

Vedran Vuk [send him mail] is a student of Economics at Loyola University of New Orleans, and a 2006 Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts