GearBits

Did you know the turtle has seven different kinds of meat? hmmmmmm.

The article above assumes that the turtles and the gas wells cannot exist together. It also assumes that the turtles are valuable. It further assumes that the Ridley turtle is somehow unique. Many of these so-called species are just typed by the locale. Let's not get paranoid about turtles, get paranoid about the first, second and third amendment erosions....

Steve,
The article indicates that "...the main risk to turtles is the heavy trucks on the beach. The trucks could crush nests or pack down the sand so that hatchlings are unable to emerge from nests. Even the vibrations from rumbling trucks can increase the likelihood of embryonic damage or mortality..." I think that rules out co-habitation, unless the gas company dramatically changes its industrial techniques (which I wouldn't bet on).

"Valuable?" Valuable in what sense? Value to whom? Unless humans are the final arbiter of the value of all things, then why should we claim the right to say what should exist and what should not? What is of little value to us may be of significant value to someone or something else. Sure, we have the ability to destroy a species, but does that give us the right to?

I'm with ya on the Bill of Rights decay -- the environment is just a *different* stage for abuses by the current administration, IMO.

I know this is your site and all, but this is a "gear" website, right? All of this whining about endangered turtles gives me a headache. OK, you sucked me in.

Here's my take on the story (and pretty much life in general). Most people either believe in Evolutionism (Darwin) or Creationism (God).

The former believes in survival of the fittest. If the turtles couldn't hack it, sucks to be them. Mind if we take a DNA sample Mr. Turtle? You know, just in case you might prove valuable to us somewhere down the road? We all wish you good luck in your future endeavors.

The latter camp believes that everything happens for a purpose (God's will). God wouldn't let something "bad" happen without a reason.

So, which most closely describes you?

The answer to your question of who is the final arbiter of value contains somewhat of a catch-22. If we are, then drill away. I need CNG. It's also "greener" than burning coal and oil. Not to mention the fact that I sure don't have a solar-powered range (please...no "full of hot gas" comments).

If we're not the judges, then who are YOU to tell ME that the Kemp ridley sea turtle is more valuable to existance than making MY quality of life better?

The fact that it is a turtle that is being threatened and not some siberian tiger will probably not garner a whole lot of mainstream attention. We want to save fuzzy kitties too, but jump into a cage with a hungry tiger and see how "valuable" he considers you. I can also pretty much guarantee that Mr. Ebola is not looking out for your best interests either.

It may sound cruel, but I believe in survival of the fittest. Millions upon millions of species have come and gone over the past 5 billion or so years. I will not bat an eyelid if this particular one can't cut the mustard. So what if we help it along a bit? Adapt or get out of the road.

Once again, I've probably shocked a few people. Let me explain that I prefer to think of the world in a much bigger picture. Global warming, ozone holes, take your pick of issues-of-the-week. None really concern me much. Call me short-sighted, but I worry a lot more about preserving MY family and home than a little turtle's sandpile.

I also have no need to "Save the Earth" and I feel those that do are wasting the precious time that they were given. The earth has been around for 5 billion years. Who are we to think we can destroy it? We may contribute to destroying ourselves and a good percentage of all life on this big rock, but the earth and life will go on. That is, until another big rock crashes into us again. We're almost due for another 26 million year ctrl-alt-del. :)

Phew. OK, I'm done.

Peace out,
Russ

P.S. Keep up the great work. Love the site! And Palmpilots rule! Hehe

Russ,
Darwinism and evolution don't equate to "survival of the fittest" exactly -- that is a common misconception propagated by inadequately trained science teachers and populist media.

Evolution is a gradual process -- it occurs over millennia. Human-created destruction happens over decades -- the scale is entirely different and therefore does not fall into what is generally considered evolutionary theory. Complex animals and plants generally can't adapt that fast.

For example, per your argument, it should be OK for someone to come up and put a bullet through your skull because they want that Big Mac you're chomping on. After all, they must be more fit for survival than you are -- you're dead and they're not.

My basic point is that humans, as the dominant life-form (currently) on the planet, should be able to co-exist without threatening en masse other plants and animals. Personally, I don't want to live on a planet where we've killed off 60% of the species and the only undeveloped space is under the ocean or on Antarctica. My perspective, my philosophy, if you will, is based on co-habitation. While I have doubts that mankind can "destroy the Earth," as you put it, I have no doubts that we can make it a less rich planet by perturbing the natural cycles that permit life to continue to evolve as it has.

As you demonstrate, Russ, humans have been short-sighted and have made very selfish decisions throughout our brief history on this planet. It's my hope that we can learn from past mistakes, from our egocentric myopia, and improve our ability to co-exist with the rest of the planet's occupants. That way, we don't have to decide which, you or the turtle, is more valuable -- you both survive through no harm done by the other.

Craig,
You are obviously an activsist that uses this site as their "bully pulpit". You are well educated or at least well read. However, you make assumptions about science as well as politics that are not absolute. Indeed evolution is a slow process with periodic mass extinctions that are quite rapid. A wise man understands how little he truly knows. Many of these environemntal issues are so complex that even the most complex supercomputers are not capable of a solution. But I know one absolute fact, mankind will never put himself behind a Ridley turtle. Ask anybody in the Northeast in midwinter would they prefer a live turtle or heat for their home. We use fossil fuel at this curtate moment because it is cheap. Alternate energy sources will never fly until fossil fuel is depleted or they come up with a cheaper alternate fuel source.

Ask anyone unemployed about environmetal laws that were the direct cause of their unemployment. Do you think the competing third-world countries for our manufacturing jobs care about the environment. In fact the Kyoto Treaty exempts these third-world conutries. Explain that to a unemployed auto worker from Detroit. But never fear mankind will exterminate himself long before he extirpates life on this planet

Activist? Me? Not really, but I do care and I do what I reasonably can.

What I find interesting about your assertions, Greg, is that you make it seem like it's an either-or decision: either we can avoid causing special extinction or we can have heat for our homes. My contention is that it's NOT an either-or situation -- both can be achieved if we actually put forth enough effort to figure out ways to achieve that.

To date, short-sightedness and individual self-interest have restricted progress in figuring out how to achieve this multilateral objective. My hope is that we can be more intelligent about, and more conscious of, our decisions and realize that they have long-term implications.

I'm not suggesting we put turtles ahead of our own needs -- I'm suggesting that we try harder to accommodate both. That's all.

Craig,
Let me clarify if my point was too obtuse. At the present time hydrogen technology is ten times the cost of methane. Solar technology is not efficient using plastic solar panels and too expensive to build silicon panels. Fusion using deuterium creates large amounts of radioactive isotope waste even though it is fusion. Possibly using helium3 (basicly nonexistent on planet Earth) combined with deuterium may be a better choice and less polluting. However the only known large source of Helium3 is on the moon. Fission creates even more radioactive waste with longer half-lifes. Wind power is too intermittent and kills birds.

I still stand on my assertion that we will use the cheapest source for as long as possible until we have no other choice

And "when we have no other choice"???.........

IT'S CALLED "PEAK OIL" and "PEAK NATURAL GAS" The terms CNN and Fox won't be using until they have to and most of us may be dead by then.

RECENT ARTICLE:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html

WEBSITES:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/SECTIONS/ENERGY/oil.depletion.php

http://www.copad.org/

http://postcarbon.org/index.php?doc=clear

http://www.dieoff.com/

http://www.copvcia.com/

today it's turtles, tomorrow it's our kids drafted to die in Saudi Arabia for the world's 2nd largest oil reserve--we're being prepped for it already. So you see Russ, you can't kill ENOUGH turtles to protect your family. While Greg bravely takes the lead in proving he is no "wise man" by his own loudly touted criteria, Craig's comments seem the most carefully considered here--particularly his point that Russ has mistaken the human dominator virus for nature's evolution. For more reasons to hope and work for a sanely reverant, radically ingenious world that mimmics and cooperates with nature (and saves our asses) check into these sites:

http://www.bioneers.org/
--I attend the Bioneers convention in Marin, Ca every year. I know a several of the scientists, inventors and various mavericks who present their work here.

http://www.biomimicry.org/
--She's one of the presenters and her work is really exciting--I think you'll find inspiration here, Craig based on what you've expressed here.

http://www.apolloalliance.org/
--Who said high environmental standards lead to unemployment??? At last, the uniting of workers' unions and environmental advocacy groups.

The Biomimicry website at http://www.biomimicry.org/ is pretty kewl -- many fascinating ideas there. Thanks for posting, Hugh.

this site is stupid