Enviro-statism

Originally posted by sh76
But what about [whodey's] underlying point?

Whodey's underlying point was that it was a deliberate genocide by what he calls "Statists" and, from the general tedious thrust of his paranoid posts on this Forum, as well as fibs and barbs and pouts throughout this "Enviro-Statism" thread, he sees the handling of the dilemma over this dangerous toxin as part and parcel of death camps for his granny, and tax is slavery, representative democracy is "Statism", and of course Obama is a "Statist" like Hitler, the W.H.O. deliberately killed "billions" of people, reducing pollution and carbon emissions is tyrannical "Statism", Pro-Choice advocates are Nazis, public servants are "Statists", Freedom Of Speech is finished, ACORN is the same as the mass murdering Al Capone's crime empire, blah blah broken record blah blah...

...because they're all "Statists". That was whodey's underlying point. And he'll be back with another related one again soon. It's interesting that you seek to cover for him and disguise what his misanthropic paranoid hobby horse really is. But, then again, that's your prerogative.

Originally posted by FMF
Whodey's underlying point was that it was a deliberate genocide by what he calls "Statists" and, from the general tedious thrust of his paranoid posts on this Forum, as well as fibs and barbs and pouts throughout this "Enviro-Statism" thread, he sees the handling of the dilemma over this dangerous toxin as part and parcel of death camps for his granny, an ...[text shortened]... paranoid hobby horse really is. But, then again, that's your prerogative.

Whodeys point was that the policy of the statists resulted in genocide like numbers. I make no judgements as to their intentions. That is between them and God.

Originally posted by sh76
whodey,

You did take this one overboard. It's apparent from all of Levin's arguments and sources that there was no "ban" on DDT.

Everyone else,

Okay, you caught whodey in an overstatement. Congratulations. But what about his underlying point? Was the WHO and the international scientific community too quick to advocate decreasing the use of DDT (that's r point too strongly, and then maybe we can get back to the underlying point?

Good luck on them talking about the substance of what is being said.
After all, if you were on the other side, would you want to tackle these facts? Instead, all they can do is call me a liar based upon the fact there was no actual ban by WHO, which I initially got wrong. In the interim, just turn you head and ignore the fact that the US basically stopped its use in the third world due to the fact that they were the ones funding its use. Whether there was an officlal ban or not seems irrelavent based upon the fact that either way you wound up with the same results. They then assessed this decision some 30 years later and decided to fund its use again. Go figure?

Originally posted by whodey
Whodeys point was that the policy of the statists resulted in genocide like numbers.

What was "statist" about them? Who are "the statists"?

Originally posted by whodey
Go figure?

The decline in DDT use coincided with a drop in malaria rates. Go figure.

Originally posted by whodey
I make no judgements as to their intentions. That is between them and God.

So what you are (still) insinuating is that they may have done it on purpose.

Originally posted by FMF
So what you are (still) insinuating is that they may have done it on purpose.

I am not going to attempt to evaluate everyones motives involved. From my analysis, it was for a myriad of reasons. Some may have even believed they were doing "good" as where others may have stood to benefit personally and materially from its ban. In fact, the scientist Lavine talks about comes to mind. He wrote, "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third Word its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapians should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." This type of thinking is akin to Shav's initial objection that to potentially kill millions of animals to potentially save millions of humans is unethical. It is the belief that man is no better than any other organism in nature, in fact, he is worse because of his destructive existence. So taking this type of thinking into perspective, to save the planet even though people in the Third Word may die as a result, may be a "good" thing. Of course, I'm not saying that everyone involved thought in this way. Perhaps some really thought that the stuff was more harmful than good to mankind setting aside the possible effects on nature. In that case, you, as well as everyone else who thinks this, should be outraged that WHO decided to begin using it in the Third World once again via US funding after some 30 years of stopping its use.

Originally posted by FMF
The decline in DDT use coincided with a drop in malaria rates. Go figure.

Source?

Originally posted by whodey
Source?

Source?

Are you telling me that you've read up on this topic and you didn't come across this? Surely not.

Originally posted by FMF
Source?

Are you telling me that you've read up on this topic and you didn't come across this? Surely not.

I would just love for you to give a source, any source, instead of just walking around calling me a paranoid liar. Its called a debate FMF.

Originally posted by whodey
Whodeys point was that the policy of the statists resulted in genocide like numbers. I make no judgements as to their intentions. That is between them and God.

So let's get this straight. Statism is anything done anywhere by anybody on behalf of an electorate, community or government or any other governing institution, democratic or otherwise. So all actions of our elected representatives, government officials, public servants, people working on public projects and contracts... it's all Statism. And they are all Statists.

So that's interesting. You can go around the world and rummage through history, and fill your bug jar with any and all things that were bad or misinformed or with which you disagree or about which there is scope for carping hindsight, or which people wanted but you don't think they should have wanted, and you can lump all these instances of "evil" together, dub it an ideology - with a catch-all terminology: "Statism" - and everyone involved in it, or everyone who apporved of it, or everyone that does not condemn it with sufficient fervour, are deemed to be "Statists" - all of whom can be systematically smeared by the term 'Statist' for being associated with or collaborating with everything bad that has ever happened and everything bad that has ever been done, anywhere, at any time.

Furthermore, it is fair game to project onto "Statists" any depraved, conjured-up motivation one wants because there is no one to speak authoritatively on "their" behalf, suffice to say, anyone that questions these accusations and theories does so because they are "Statists" too.

Why on Earth should anyone take seriously this misanthropic prism through which you look at concerted human activity?

Originally posted by whodey
I would just love for you to give a source, any source, instead of just walking around calling me a paranoid liar. Its called a debate FMF.

So you are claiming to have studied this topic closely and yet did not come across that factoid? Is there some reason you're pretending not to know its source? Have you read anything at all about DDT other than the propaganda you typed out for us?

Originally posted by whodey
I would just love for you to give a source, any source, instead of just walking around calling me a paranoid liar. Its called a debate FMF.

Here's some stuff. Presumably you've read it already. Strikes me that there's lods of stuff you appear to have rejected out of hand:

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/0800281/abstract.html

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10315/10315.pdf

http://www.who.int/malaria/mediacentre/wmr2008/

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626280.400-toxic-colonialism.html/

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2022671

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/10258/10258.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2137130

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2717133

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12837917

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12837917

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/03-0082.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17938733

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no6/03-0787_03-1116.htm

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10550/abstract.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2022666

http://pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33482

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/[WORD TOO LONG]/sdarticle.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.10550

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2367684

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1849908

http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?an=00043764-200812000-00003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097%2FJOM.0b013e31818f684d

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092487

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2684791

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay/PrintVersion/print2_e.html

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2009/11748/11748.pdf

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/108060819/abstract

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18799776

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8045/8045.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/examples/AlaskaPeregrine.cfm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwi275

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/115807299/ABSTRACT
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2453156

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/114261513/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6492/6492.html

http://www.contracostatimes.com/health/ci_6524706?nclick_check=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ddt30sep30,0,3451847.story?coll=la-home-nation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120699

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045-6535(07)00040-9

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2430238

http://dx.doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.10490

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=pesticide-exposure-tied-t&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djn101v1

Originally posted by FMF
[b]So let's get this straight. Statism is anything done anywhere by anybody on behalf of an electorate, community or government or any other governing institution, democratic or otherwise. So all actions of our elected representatives, government officials, public servants, people working on public projects and contracts... it's all Statism. And they are all Statists.

That is your definition not mine. Lavine introduced the term to me. Here is what he says,

"The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights. Like the Founders, the Conservative also recognizes in society a harmony of interests, as Adam Smith put it, and rules of cooperation that have developed through generations of human experience and collective reasoning that promote the betterment of the individual and society. This is characterized as ordered liberty, the social contract, or the civil society. What are the conditions of this civil society? In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract satistic or faceless member of some group; rather,heis a unique, spiritual being wtih a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgement. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfecty, to be virtuous--that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends. In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions, tried and tested over time and passes from one generation to the next, that established society's cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works. In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseperable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty. In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albiet imperfectly, provides the governing framework for and restraints on the policy, thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use and, hence abuse of power. For the Conservative, the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement."

"The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfections and personal pursuits impeded the ojbective of the utopian state. in this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tockqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). AS the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.



So basically Lavine looks at the battle as being between the civil society and the statist. The statist is continuously looking to usurp the rights of individuals within the civil society that is not backed by the law of the land. The law must then be "reinterpreted" or ignored or rewritten to usurp such rights.

As for myself, I look at it this way. The country I live in in increasingly becoming a Nanny state. Suppose you give someone in your life whom you trust the power to take care of every aspect of your existance? No doubt, they will have your best interests at heart, but even at that, they will no doubt make decisions that you would not have made. No doubt, you will regret in some measure the power that you surrendered to them in some form or fashion. However, what if this person dies and leaves the job to someone else or for some reason becomes neglagent or even decides to not act in your best interest for whatever reason? You have already surrendered the right to take care of yourself, so trying to regain the right to care for yourself will have been made that much harder, if not impossible. This is the role of the statist in my mind. They continually usurp the rights from the average Joe in any way they can with enviro-statists included.