The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.
Species of life become extinct over time. Plain and simple fact of life. If nature selects a species for extinction, who are we to argue? Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off. IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).
...unless you would prefer to contend with 500 ton prehistoric creatures using you as their main meal ticket.
I have no desire to increase my wealth. I have a desire to survive and flourish. Some have chosen to make a debt based fiat currency the only means by which that is possible... for now. So be it. It is need not desire.
No one has the right to force their will on another in an offensive manner, not under penalty of death should they resist or defend themselves, and especially not groups or collectives.
The reasons simply do not matter. All of your excuses, rationale and attempted justifications are a facade.
Why do you bring your libertarian mantras into a pontification regarding the science behind ecology? Your speculations about the subject only show your ignorance.
The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.
Actually, it has its roots in the studies of island biogeography, as started by Edward O. Wilson and furthered by John Terborgh. Your notion of it as a control mechanism for wealth, etc. is in fact something that has been drilled into your head by whatever propaganda you're soaking up. I'm willing to educate you on this matter by citing white papers and academic material by scientists who couldn't give a shit about wealth. I will give you a severe education relentlessly until you are fully clear on that matter.
Species of life become extinct over time.
If you wish to discuss extinction rates, let's get into it. We can start with your usage of the term 'over time' and what that qualifies as, and how it differs with your historical understanding of it and how that compares with recent examples that you're justifying.
Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off.
Actually, if you want to discuss the meaning of artificial with regard to ecology, I can do that. After that future conversation, I think you will be severely corrected with regard to species extinction rates, and which was artificial, and which wasn't.
IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).
Wow. You're a real expert, aren't you? Actually, it's very clear how uneducated you are. When you want to have a discussion about trophic cascades and ecosystem services, let me know. As it stands, breeding in captivity has nothing to do with the valid reasons for species preservation. The key term 'umbrella species' kind of flew right by you, didn't it?
Here's something I wrote a little while back. Read it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879To get your way requires forcing your will on other people and stealing their land, wealth, and liberty.
There is no justification for that.
All one has to do is research the history of the people, families, businesses, and governments connected to the people putting out the global emergency agendas.
These are the worlds richest people (that we know of), the epitome of destruction and excess, telling the rest of us to live frugally.
Oh wait... its because they care about you and me... right?
