Repost from the old site.
Environmentalists who insist that socialism or social democracy will save the environment have always worried me. Canada’s been ruled by social democrats for a long time, and it’s horrible on environmental issues.
Interestingly, the radical rightwing US Bush regime proposed a reduced quota to keep the bluefin tuna from going extinct, and the far rightwing governments of Guatemala and Panama amazingly agreed to it.
So who shot it down? A bunch of “socialists” in Europe, in particular the leftwing Spanish government. Looks like the Arab governments of Mediterranean (presumably including “socialist” Qaddafi and the “Socialists” in Algeria) are the ones who really shot it down. 90% of the remaining stocks are in the Mediterranean. On the European side, the criminals were Spain, Italy and probably France.
The impetus? Protect the local fishing trade, which is big money. But once the bluefins go extinct, and they will under this plan, the amount of money the industry will make off the bluefin trade will be $0 per year. The job loss will be a nice round 100%.
Extraction industries under capitalism have always been like gays on a condomless months-long group sex binge in San Francisco. Fun now, pay bigtime (die) later.
Over and over, fishermen have deliberately driven fish species to commercial or actual extinction, and that’s just recently. Extraction industries are ultimately suicidal. They never get it. They’re like Peter Pan and age. They never think the stock is going to run out.
Extraction industries will destroy everything in their path – fish, wild animals for furs or food, forests for wood, range for cattle or sheep, you name it. Foresters will always choose to cut down every last tree and then stand around bewildered like a drunk who wakes up on Saturday morning and realizes he blew his check at the bar.
Ranchers will always destroy range, especially if it’s public range that they don’t even own. How? By running too many cows or sheep on it. After decades of that, they can hardly run one ungulate on the land anymore, but like a wiped-out gambling addict running to the casino with his latest paycheck in hand, they never seem to get it.
Extractive industry is run by perpetual children masquerading as adults who are not able, due to the nature of their industry, to think or behave rationally. All voluntary regulation, deregulation, minimal government (Republican, conservative and rightwing) solutions will always fail.
If there’s one aspect of the capitalist economy that will always need adult supervision, it’s the extractive clowns. Problem is the state is typically in bed with the extractive problem gamblers.
There are no easy solutions, but socialism is surely a false hope. From flooding the West with immigrants, legal and illegal, to support for suicidal extractives on “national economy” grounds, modern socialism will always fail the environment. The solution is Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology is divorced from the capitalism vs. Communism thing and always puts the environment first.
European "Socialists" Agree To Drive Bluefin Tuna Extinct
Repost from the old site.
3 thoughts on “European "Socialists" Agree To Drive Bluefin Tuna Extinct”
Deep ecology sees humans as intruders in nature. It is profoundly inimical to the human species. Deep ecology is like unilateral pacifism. It imposes restrctions on the human species which no other species imposes on itself.
Concern about the environment should be primarily anthropocentric, that is, we should try to keep the air, water and soil in such a condition that it can sustain healthy human life. Secondarily, we can also try to preserve other species, even though such preservation often has nothing to do with maintaining an environment fit for humans. The extinction of wolves and bears in Brtitain did not damage the British environment from a human point of view. The extinction of the few remaining Siberian tigers would not hurt the Siberian environment.
Preserving species is often like preserving historical buildings. Such buildings are not necessary for city life, but they are preserved for esthetic reasons and out of respect for the past. Likewise, we can preserve species out of respect for nature, even though it often is not functional from the point of view of human interest.
We should not confuse protection of the environment with preservation of nature. The first is necessary, the second really is not. Obviously, the more nature is preserved, the fewer humans there can be. I’m all in favor of preserving part of nature, but if we want to preserve all of it, the human species will have to commit collective suicide. In a world of 6.5 billion people there is only so much pristine natre that can be off-limits to human encroachment.
Granted, population control is imperative, but it is imperative from an anthropocentric point of view. The more humans multiply, the more they’ll be subject to Malthusian checks. It is highly probably that Malthusian checks will soon be seen in sub-Saharan Africa, where population growth continues to be high and fertility is not falling fast.
Have a good day. James
Very important post. I remember reading a paper that found dictators had a rather large impact on environmental policy, whether for good or bad. I can’t remember who they used for bad, but one of the “good guys” was none other than [bad guy extraordinaire] Rafael Trujillo. He did stuff like extend reservation and forested areas, created one of the first national parks in DR, banned the slash-and-burn method for agricultural clearance, banned logging [without his permission] etc.
I don’t think unfettered capitalism works in this type of scenario, even with good intentions.