All of a sudden, it appears that no one cares about our biodiversity and endangered species. Except for the select group of us who care a whole awful lot.
Governors, City councils, and now the Army are all whining about how 'protecting sage grouse' (an animal in the single digit percentage (3.1%) of it's original population, will hurt them. Not to mention all the other species that will, by proxy, be protected as well.
Oh boo hoo. There are nearly 8 billion people (over 1600% of our rightful population) on this bloated planet, and nearly all of us don't deserve to be here.
Quit your damned belly-aching you sniveling whiny little peasants and try to have a wise thought. I know it's hard. People are very nearly never wise. Such a rant as this is case-in-point.
We are whining about listing this bird as threatened, not even endangered. When, rationally, it would be impossible to argue in non-legal terms that it isn't critically endangered. 3.1% of it's original population. And that's using the upper estimate (500,000 individuals.) of it's current population. It is critically endangered. Perhaps some state-run ideas can help protection, perhaps listing it will piss off the rabble so that it actually hurts the Sage Grouse. But it is, very obviously, endangered.
What would it be like if there was only 3.1% of human's rightful population on this planet? Let's do some figuring:
The global population should not really be over 500 million. Which is really generous: we didn't crack that until 1500 AD. We might be a lot more comfortable (and the worlds forests would certainly be a lot more comfortable) if we were estimated closer to 100 million, which we seemed to hover pretty stable at between 6000 BC to nearly AD.
3.1% would be 3.1 to 15 million people. Which is still quite a lot, between the current population of Albania and Los Angeles California.
Ahhh... What a wonderful world that would be....
Would you call people endangered at that point?
No comments:
Post a Comment