From: Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Newsgroups: misc.rural
Subject: Re: the threat from animal-rights and environmentalists
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: tomobiki-cho.cac.washington.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I am not surprised that someone from Singapore would rise to the
defense of the authoritarian tendencies of radical environmentalism
and animal-rights nutsos, given that Singapore itself is an
authoritarian state which does not tolerate behavior outside of the
Official Government Approved Standards.

Life must be very easy for Singaporeans.  They don't have to worry
about deciding what to do with their lives because the government
tells them what to do.  The government tells them gum-chewing is bad
and bans chewing gum; nary a peep of protest.  The government tells
them that smart people must make more babies, they make more babies.
None of this nasty nonsense of freedom or individual choice in the
way.  None of this having to worry about who to vote for either; the
ruling People's Action Party only allows one opposition deputy in
parliament at most so no thought is involved there.

Also, being a city-state, Singaporeans don't have to think about the
difference in conditions between a rural and an urban area, because
Singapore doesn't have any rural areas to speak of; 7% of its area is
cropland and 5% is forest; the rest is industrialized and urban.  Only
1.2% of the population works in agriculture.

However, elsewhere in the world, there still remains a concept of
individual choice, freedom, and property rights in some countries.
Elsewhere in the world, there are farms whose size is greater than the
entire nation of Singapore.  There are even a few countries in which
the governing political party is periodically turned out of office.
Such freedoms are under attack in the US as it is elsewhere in the
world; but they persist nonetheless.

And while some vestige of freedom and property rights remains, there
will also remain people who remain skeptical of the so-called
``experts'' who offer unproven computer models and political/religious
ideology to back up their claims.  The foundation of science is
skepticism.

If a radical program of land confiscation on the grounds of
``environmental preservation'' is to be promulgated, there should be
some hard scientific evidence to back up these actions; not just
political ideology.  If a cow pasture that has been used as such for
60 years is suddenly to be designed as an ``environmentally-sensitive
wetland'' and confiscated from its owner on an emergency basis, there
should be scientific proof that such measures are necessary and it
isn't just a land-grab.

If the radical animal-rights agenda (strict vegetarianism, no animal
research, no fur or leather, no pets, no work-animals, nor any other
use of animals) is to be promulgated, there should be some hard
scientific evidence to back up these actions as being to the benefit
of humanity (or even to the animals).  The Politically Correct around
the world demand an AIDS vaccine, yet would they volunteer their own
bodies to a vaccine which had not undergone any animal testing?

No, sir, the narrow-mindedness is on the part of environmentalists and
animal-rights advocates.  No sane person advocates wanton abuse of the
environment; nor does a sane person sanction ill-treatment of animals.
On the other hand, it is not the case that an act committed in the
name of ``the environment'' or ``animal rights'' is necessarily a
proper, appropriate, or scientifically justifiable act.

It is quite possible to be concerned and active in preserving and
improving the worldwide environment, yet opposed to environmentalism;
just as it is quite possible to be concerned and active in improving
animal welfare, yet opposed to the animal-rights movement.  This
describes a great many rural people.  Contrary to urbanite arrogance,
educated and intelligent people do live on the farm.

It does not, however, require much intelligence or education to
recognize that the claim that a cow pasture used for 60 years is an
``environmentally sensitive wetland'' is of equivalent value to the
bovine excrement found there.