1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17246/killing-animals-to-stop-global-warming/

Killing Animals to Stop Global Warming

June 9, 2011 by

Yes, we are now at that point. The Australian government is proposing to kill Camels in the wilds of the country in order to reduce methane output. Experts say the camels are a menace: they are doing damage to physical property, trampling vegetation, and invading remote settlements. Thus, it would be good to kill them. The government would pay sharpshooters in the form of so-called carbon credits.

This makes one wonder how the world existed without global warming being at the “tipping point” for tens of thousands of years while camels, as well as numerous other methane-emitting animals existed.

It also sets a precedent. For whatever animals are a menace, and can be traced to damage or nuisance of one form or another, let’s just kill them all. We could start with the cows (thus reducing our food supply).

Similarly, we could kill groups of people who are seen to be a menace or nuisance. After all, humans are emitting methane as well, and leaving huge carbon footprints (thankfully—or we’d all be dying of starvation, cold, heat, or disease).

After all, one Australian medical expert has called for a $5,000 tax on all children born, and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 per child, due to the supposed negative effect on the environment each person produces. The environmental group The Voluntary Human Extinction Program, which has the slogan, “May we live long and die out,” consists of volunteers who have made decisions to remain childless, so that other species can live instead. The group’s founder states, “As long as there’s one breeding pair of homosapiens on the planet, there’s too great a threat to the biosphere.” A University of Texas biology professor claims that humans must die for earth to live, and states that disease “will control the scourge of humanity. We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.” These people certainly must be the life of the party at summer cookouts. Do you doubt that they would support government action (government force) to advance their cause?

(See page 379 of my book for supporting documentation of these facts)


Khmer Rouge June 9, 2011 at 1:18 pm

The logical end of this enviro-evolutionary, socialist, and Creator-Godless worldview is something like the great state of Kampuchea. Why not? People are just slightly over-advanced animals. And besides, nothing matters anyway because there is absolutely no truth. Let’s go Kampuchea!

infidel June 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm

I was disappointed to see Nina Paley cartoons on VHEMT’s website. I’m hoping this is just satire.

Seattle June 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm

It is. The VHEP is a joke. There are, however, a few extremists who really do wanna see humanity get wiped out.

J. Murray June 9, 2011 at 1:23 pm

“who have made decisions to remain childless”

Well, at least they won’t be around long enough to make a difference. Their bad genes die with them.

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Why must people who decide to not breed automatically be cataloged as “bad genes”.
Why is it that the only way to improve the gene pool is to kill people ?

It’s this precise attitude that would consider the extinction of their genes to be good instead of a loss that makes me hate the human kind.

This assumption that those who spread their genes are good and those who don’t are bad and that Darwinism which preaches only the strong survives.

This kind of attitude makes it so that compassion is self-defeating and that therefore one should strive to spread his genes will extinct all others.

That doesn’t seem very civilized to me.

Consider the fact that sex drive is a great force that curbs your free will. Only those who cannot overcome this force spread their genes.

Don’t you see that nature wants genes with low free will, because rebellion is not allowed to spread it’s genes.

Nature seems to want masses of strong arms with weak free will, controlled by a handful of strong intellects with weak free wills, all controlled by nature’s sex pulse and all sorts of covetousness.

Look at cattle and how their genes are spread all over the place only to be treated like objects of torture and mutilation so their flesh can be eaten as meat. How can this generations after generations of misery and torture be construed as success ?

I’m sorry, but I rebel against this Darwinism that imprisons the human soul in the double-helix of DNA.

One day, fortunately, computers will advance so much that it will make DNA obsolete. And all the bad of spreading this diseased life form will disappear for the benefit of a superior cyber life form.

Call me crap, stupid, a failure all you want, but I refuse to spread my genes and I give both Darwin and God the finger !!!

Virginia Llorca June 9, 2011 at 8:49 pm

Living is so fun for you!!!

Ken Zahringer June 9, 2011 at 1:30 pm

Every member of the “Voluntary Human Extinction Project” has the power to reduce the human population of this planet by one person, yet they haven’t done it. Looks like they’re not really serious about this issue.

nate-m June 9, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Certainly. The VHEP’s interests would be best served if they simply lead by example. Also if they took out the people that decided that the third most common gas in our atmosphere is a pollutant then that would prove their point even further.

Extreme environmentalism as a backdoor to fascism…. gee what a surprise. Nobody saw that coming.

Virginia Llorca June 9, 2011 at 8:53 pm

I love seeing one sentence like your last one every now and then, which is how often you see them. Bless your heart (and mind). Only now it’s not a backdoor; it’s a gateway.

Jake W. June 10, 2011 at 3:22 am

hahaha I love it! This is exactly what I say to all my moronic librarian coworkers who like to pretend that they love the earth so much and claim that the earth deserves to live more than humans. Indeed, if you truly care about the earth so much, show me. Put a bullet in your head for the earth’s sake.

Shay June 9, 2011 at 2:01 pm

So, after we’ve eliminated every living creature (since they might upset the balance of things sometime in the future), we’ll have…er… there will be a perfectly-balanced Earth for no living thing to enjoy. Mission accomplished?

Dave Albin June 9, 2011 at 2:14 pm

No, they just want to get rid of humans. For some reason, we’re evil and all the predatory and parasitic animals are “natural”. Strange…..

Paul June 9, 2011 at 2:49 pm

Wrong. Some want to kill the camels in the “in the wilds of the country”, as the title and second sentence were sufficient to inform you.

Perhaps the science nerds and enviro activists will demand next that vegetarians, too, be killed. How dare vegetarians not hunt camels. Earth is suffering!

The vegetarians will provide the do-gooders of IHEMT, the Involuntary Human Extinction Movement, with the segue that they need. Rightwing conservatives will cheer, of course, and even toxic clods like Lew Rockwell might smile in approval when the veggies are forced to snuff it. After all, veggies tend to disdain aggressive destruction of nature.

It would seem that IHEMT’s members are PR savvy and willing to sacrifice a few of their own allies for the greater good.

tadeusz June 10, 2011 at 1:05 am

Camels were brought to Australia by the human settlers. They are “unnatural” enough to trigger the status-quo bias.

Dave Albin June 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Yeah, right now. The next step is us. After all, we do much more “damage” to the environment than camels. That’s an easy step to make.

jon June 9, 2011 at 3:37 pm

VHEMT is fantastic. Especially for the purpose of teaching logic to young people.

What’s more, being 100% voluntary, they are ahead of quite a few “libertarians” in learning and applying the Most Important Lesson in life. I have always been favorable to their cause.

Should they succeed, perhaps I will acquire their domain name and note “mission accomplished.”

Or, perhaps I will hang up a plaque somewhere:

“You knew you could do it;”
“And now we can forget.”

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm

Such contempt for other human beings, you are proving by your disdain towards them and their “bad” genes than mankind has no value whatsoever and that the libertarian ethos is worthless and that finally, it’s been might is right ever since the beginning.

Thanks, I will never again show humans any compassion for the rest of my life. Your refusal to see any value in their lives is giving a big clue that there is no value in mankind whatsoever, breeding like non-breeding.

Matthew Swaringen June 9, 2011 at 5:39 pm

They don’t see much value in their lives either. That’s obvious from the position they take.

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 8:02 pm

I see value in my life, not in having children. Does that make my genes bad and me crap ?

Should people celebrate this as an improvement of the gene pool ?

Could it at least sometimes be considered as a lost instead of an improvement ?

I thought that the gene pool thrived on diversity, obviously our standardized and sheepish society is breeding a homogeneous blend of genes with very little diversity.

David June 9, 2011 at 9:20 pm

In a genetic sense, if you aren’t reproducing, you may as well not exist. It doesn’t make your genes “bad,” it just makes them irrelevant.

P.M.Lawrence June 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm

No, actually. Sometimes non-reproducing individuals aid the spread of their genes by helping their relatives – as with worker bees, etc.

David June 9, 2011 at 10:38 pm

Are your genes the same as your relatives’? No. If one does not reproduce, his genes are irrelevant. He can help in continuing the family line (which passes on the genes of others) or the species as a whole, but his specific genetic pattern may as well not exist.

I guess you could make an argument that a person with a twin could technically pass on his genes by assisting his twin.

P.M.Lawrence June 10, 2011 at 2:02 am

David, that’s a nice try, but it doesn’t apply. It’s not a specific combination of genes that operates, in general, which is just as well because that never gets transmitted, apart from special cases like specially inbred laboratory animals and clones. But just as success in breeding raises the odds of the genes spreading (albeit in varying combinations and among quite distinct individuals), so also does non-breeding behaviour that promotes the success of breeding (including raising young) among near relatives. If you have three siblings, the odds are good that most of your genes are around somewhere among them; add in a few cousins, and the omissions from your genes are quite small – and never mind that your own precise combination isn’t.

Dave Albin June 10, 2011 at 7:06 pm

It doesn’t really matter, anyway. Genetic material between humans really isn’t that different. As long as we continue to allow for prosperity, then the presence of all genes will slowly and generally increase. The greatest threat to genetic variation is the lack of a free market, and freedom in general.

Virginia Llorca June 9, 2011 at 8:54 pm

If they succeed, you won’t be here to acquire their domain name. Chicken? Egg?

Jim June 9, 2011 at 3:39 pm

Why go to all the trouble of tramping through the Outback?

Let’s begin with our pets, and quickly progress to deformed and mentally challenged children. They aren’t much more than pets anyway. And think of the carbon we use in treating them!

Honestly, our cultural meme has gone insane; the earth is so fragile that less than 100 years of industrialization threatens it. AND, the present complexity of species and climate MUST be preserved at all cost, AND, the only recourse is massive and intrusive government control.

All that from the ‘scientific’ party.

I humbly suggest we privatize all universities tomorrow. The nonsense will end in less than a generation.

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 3:54 pm

“Yes, we are now at that point. The Australian government is proposing to kill Camels in the wilds of the country in order to reduce methane output.”

Next, they will kill humans. 1941 all over again !!!

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm

“The government would pay sharpshooters in the form of so-called carbon credits.”

That would be a cool job, LOL :-D

Hey Joe, what do you do for a living ?
I drive my pickup truck in the Tasmania desert and I shoot camels. LOL :-D

They will give a contract to Mike O’Dwyer to develop a mobile metal storm platform that will automatically sense camels and shoot them by the herd. Bureaucrats behind their computers will “play” shoot-the-camel all day with a cup of coffee, doughnuts and air conditionning.

Sometimes, they will organize networked shooting contests at the office to see who can wipe out the most camels. LOL :-D

They might want to ask the US Air Force for help using their predator drones. One Hellfire missile can wipe out an entire herd.

Wiping out camels will be good for the vegetation that will get to grow larger and capture more CO2.

They could also import American wolves and wild cats so they can feed on the camels.

P.M.Lawrence June 9, 2011 at 7:38 pm

I would be most interested to learn of the location of any desert, i.e. very dry area, in Tasmania.

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Maybe my genes are crap after all, LOL :-D

Clown genes. LOL :-D

Virginia Llorca June 9, 2011 at 8:56 pm

They messed up really badly with the rabbits. Will they never learn? And they seem so sensible about some things. Oh, oh. Here I go with that yin and yang thing again.

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm

“reducing our supply our food supply”

supply of food supply, lol :-D

Just like a bushism, to power the power plant. LOL :-D

Inspector Ketchup June 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm

“consists of volunteers who have made decisions to remain childless, so that other species can live

I decided to remain childless, not because I am concerned with global warming or other species or the planet. But because I consider life as we know it, in the form of limited flesh embodiments exposed to all sorts of dangers and constraints imposed by nature and civilization, to be an abject burden to impose on my descendants.

P.M.Lawrence June 9, 2011 at 7:36 pm

This makes one wonder how the word existed without global warming being at the “tipping point” for tens of thousands of years while camels, as well as numerous other methane-emitting animals existed.

Not in Australia, they didn’t. The indigenous wild life and the bacteria that break down their wastes produce hardly any methane.

Virginia Llorca June 9, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Termites produce the most methane.

P.M.Lawrence June 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm

I think that, technically, it’s not the termites that do that but their fungus gardens. Of course, that’s the same in practice.

Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm

Didn’t look that closely. It comes out of those pointy mounds they live in.

Walt D. June 9, 2011 at 10:36 pm

Is this any different from the old pagan sacrifices where animals were killed so that the gods would send rain or sun to produce a good harvest?
Does it make any difference if the camel is virgin?

Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:11 pm

I love that “Wicker Man” story, but let’s not bring up my heritage again.

Walt D. June 10, 2011 at 8:09 pm

Outstanding Virginia – its the same mentality.

Gil June 9, 2011 at 10:48 pm

Are people utter blockheads here or what? Camels are feral introduced animals that are destructive to the native habitat and private property. It is said that as a bonus such culling reduces GHG emissionsin the same way someone who rides a pushbike for primarily financial reasons makes the claim that as a bonus it keeps him fit and is good for the environment. The notion that people can’t (/won’t) tell the difference between culling a feral pest and the killing of people’s pet or people themselves throws a huge spanner in the works when Libertarians think “taxes as theft” and “laws as thuggery”.

nate-m June 10, 2011 at 12:06 am

“The Point” —>

(–”Your Head”–)

If the camels are destroying property then nobody sees any problem with people culling their number to prevent or reduce damage. This is just proper land management.

Doing it so their farts don’t raise the temperature of the planet is idiotic on sooo many levels it’s hilarious.

Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:16 pm

Oh, man. You HAVE to read that new T.C. Boyle book about the Santa Cruz islands. Deftly balances the drama of the good ole yin versus the good ole yang in search of the beloved Tao, environmentally-wise. “When the Killing is Done”.

Walt D. June 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Most Australians are descendants of feral introduced animals -British criminals who were transported in the 19th century. :-)

x June 9, 2011 at 11:31 pm

Here is an article about a brilliant entrepreneur who saw the camels as a commodity and made millions off of them.


Ned Netterville June 10, 2011 at 9:30 am

“Camels are feral introduced animals…” All animals are feral introduced animals.

Hopefully, this attempt to eradicate camels will draw the wrath of the animal-rights nazis down upon the environazis and they will tear each other to shreds in a grand and final hissy-fit of bureaucratic regulation.

Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm

What are you talking about? The seven days of creation? All animals are not “intoduced’. The bird we call the robin is from England, but there were birds here before we got here. Are you saying the original animal was a lab creation?

Ned Netterville June 13, 2011 at 11:19 am

Mea culpa.

Make that: All feral animals are introduced.

And: Seven days or seven cosmological epochs, every animal had a predecessor, even Dolly; every effect has a cause.

Are you saying there was an “original animal?”

Virginia Llorca June 13, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Just a little definition confusion. I think of feral as “wild”, but the dictionary does include the meaning of a domestic animal going wild. I was mentally using the construct of an introduced domestic animal becoming wild (“going feral”). In this case, the camel was not really returning to its natural state since it was not native to the area. But this is semantics, not what we are here to talk about. (I am being SOOO careful to not be called out for my “one-liners”.)

I don’t know it there was an “original animal”. Probably some carbon based molecule that decided to photosynthesize and then figured out better ways to ingest oxygen, but I wasn’t there to take notes.

Ned Netterville June 14, 2011 at 9:54 am

I think of feral only as domesticated animal gone (returned?) wild. Pigs are probably the most troublesome here in the SE USA.

Where did that carbon-based molecule come from? What caused it?

Virginia Llorca June 14, 2011 at 12:10 pm

A random combination of the elements contained in the fragment that broke off the sun and found this orbit.

I don’t know what caused it. My understanding of the the limitlessness of the universe prevents me from analyzing or understanding anything more complex. I am sure I will never have enough time to study, learn, and understand the various creation myths or theories, and still have time to mull over which one I am most comfortable with or prefer to believe.

And why are you asking me? I have trouble just trying to work with the 26 letters in the alphabet. Have you gotten the idea that I have intellectual or instinctual pretensions? I do not.

Ned Netterville June 10, 2011 at 9:43 am

From the article provided by x:

“Well a camel alone sells for about $1,200 a head. Unfortunately the GOVERNMENT sees the camel as a feral animal and doesn’t recognise the potential. They should be domesticated and farmed like cattle and sheep. We’re an arid land, in fact 70% of Australia’s land is classified as arid. Why aren’t we farming arid animals? Camels can be farmed alongside cows quite simply. The forage overlap is only about 20% and they’re easy to muster. You need slight modification to your yards and trucking, but otherwise it’s a piece of cake. If you look at our farming industry, camels could raise the bottom line by 20 or 30%. And we shoot them as a feral animal. I just think it’s a disgrace.” (EMPHASIS added) Of course the ugly beast that should be extinguished is behind the camel project.

Fernando Chiocca June 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm

Life after people: an environmentalist’s dream


Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm

Supposedly roaches. Yay. I guess we know whose life that will be fun for.

Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:23 pm

I like to come to this site and try to get in toudh with factors in our history that have not been converted into bodice ripper novels. You guys seem to some times argue just to listen to yourselves . Is common sense unpopuklar on this site? I know, I know, I already got the attack about encroaching on the boy’s club, but seriously?

Michael June 11, 2011 at 10:31 am

You’ve made 12 posts in this one article.

Most of them were one liner responses to anothers comment, if you want good reasoning:

a) get some yourself and then post a comment.
b) go read Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe.

Virginia Llorca June 11, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Don’t wanna. Thanks for counting. It’s supposed to be for comments. You guys go into the longest debates.

Virginia Llorca June 10, 2011 at 6:32 pm

It’s “When the Killing is Done” if I got it wrong. T. C. Boyle. Excellent, many-layered read.

Gil June 10, 2011 at 11:15 pm

If people here think that the culling of feral animals will lead to culling of people then Libertarians should become vegetaarians immediately. Once animals are killed for meat then soon people will become food . . .

Walt D. June 11, 2011 at 12:06 pm

“Killing Animals to Stop Global Warming”
“Raising taxes to reduce the deficit”.
What is the technical term for this type of fallacy?
(It assumes that killing animals will stop global warming. It assumes that raising taxes will reduce the deficit.)

nate-m June 11, 2011 at 1:02 pm

What is the technical term for this type of fallacy?

Might means right.

Daniel June 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm

Ironic fallacy?

Ned Netterville June 13, 2011 at 11:27 am

Mises.org: Provides exponential-layered reads. (Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe.) Don’t read them at your own risk. (Not for the short sighted.)

Virginia Llorca June 13, 2011 at 3:06 pm

I’ll give it a shot. I’ve been dabbling since discovering this site. My husband was an econ major and he and my brother are/were commercial banking officers.

Do your recommendations have happy endings?

Ned Netterville June 14, 2011 at 10:12 am

They all provide hope, particularly hope for a better world devoid of wars. Although it is long–900 pages, as I recall–and quite difficult in a few esoteric chapters, Ludwig von Mises HUMAN ACTION, the magnum opus of one of the 20th centuries truly original thinkers–a brilliant scientist on par with his contemporary, Albert Einstein. If your husband did not study Mises in college, and chances are he didn’t, you will know far more about economics than he does when if you finish HA. Btw, I enjoy good one liners, particularly repostes.

skin mole removal September 24, 2011 at 1:35 am

I am concerned with global warming or other species or the planet. But because I consider life as we know it, in the form of limited flesh embodiments exposed to all sorts of dangers and constraints imposed by nature and civilization

toegangscontrole renz November 18, 2011 at 5:30 am

killing animals to stop a global warming is that right way to do, life is a cycle, and animal is part of that cycle, it helps in the environment, and make it balance, if theres is less animals in earth, that will go bad to our environment because life will not be balance anymore.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: