Green Tomorrow

“Throughout the world we encounter seeds that represent the beginning of parasite growths that must sooner or later be the ruin of our culture … (O) ne of the most powerful principles of the rule of nature: the interior of segregation of all species living beings on this earth. “- Adolph Hitler, 1943

“Now more than ever, it’s time to be vigilant, and for all of us to play a role in protecting those things that define us as a quintessential country-these things make our country and our spirit unique and special in the world.” — Biosecurity New Zealand, 2004

In 2006, the legislature of the State of Hawaii passed a law which defines officially introduced the coqui tree frog as “parasites” species. The frog, loved in his native Puerto Rico, has a distinctive chirp night that disturbs some Hawaii residents. While other residents and owners appreciate the coqui and its sound, those who want to silence the frogs are agitated for a “war Frog”, and have pushed through legislation to allow the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to force his way on private property spraying poisons to kill coquis owner without consent. The official “plague” designation gives the government of this right, trumping the rights of private property. And Hawaii is not the only place this is happening. The attack on non-native species is demanding property rights worldwide, and poses a serious threat to life and freedom.

Because of human relationship around the planet, species of animals and plants are being introduced, intentionally and unintentionally, in environments that they are not currently found. Some of these introductions may lead to environmental changes and a shift in natural balance. Governments worldwide are developing methods for controlling the spread of species, including programs to exclude imports, exports prevent and eradicate undesirable “foreigners” who “do not belong.”

That the introduction of species can change the environment in which they immigrate is undeniable and can be scientifically and objectively assessed. Or if these changes are not desirable or benefits, however, is a subjective matter, based on value judgments and politics, and not on science.

There are many cases where the introduction of a species is clearly against the interests of human health. For example, none of the values that human life would encourage the introduction of a disease carrying mosquitoes in areas where they are not currently found. However, the issue is not that mosquitoes are “alien” to the new environment, but are dangerous, regardless of their “Nativity”. In fact, the eradication campaigns against these mosquitoes would take place even if they were a “native” species. The same goes for other harmful pests that pose a threat to human health.

Preventing the spread of harmful pests is something responsible governments and agencies have done for decades. E ‘relatively uncontroversial.

However, there are cases where the introduction of a species is decried, not as a threat to human health, but as a threat to the environment. Newly introduced species can change the dymanics of the food chain, and compete with local species of space. As development and pollution destroy environments on a daily basis, the additional stress for local species caused by introductions seem a threat to the local “biosecurity”.

However, this is really an issue of biosafety, or human insecurity?

Changes of flora and fauna that can result from introductions are part of a process of natural selection. If a species is better equipped to survive in an environment, then its success is a natural result. The environment has no value system to judge what species are good or bad. If a species survive and compete favourably with its neighbours (new or old) for space and food, then the nature deems the winner in the struggle for life. That is, until another species is long challenge its position in the scheme of things.

This means that the introduction of new species that do not harm the environment. They may change. But the concept of “damage” comes from man-centered notions of good and evil, desirable and undesirable. When we see a volcano destroy a forest with a stream of lava, for example, that no environmental damage. This is processing environment. However, if people wanted the trees more lava, then it was considered environmental damage. To call a species introduction of a threat to the environment, therefore, is not a scientifically valid statement, as it reflects the priorities human and not natural.

It, however, reflect the human / cultural desire to live in a specific environment and control of influences on the environment. A culture that believes that humans are stewards of the environment believes that it is our responsibility to define the nature of that environment. Species introduced remove our sense of control.

Introductions can also effect human economy. Clearly, a species which is a plague on Agriculture can hurt. There are billions of dollars spent each year controlling these pests. And the habitat changes that may result from some introductions may lead to problems aesthetic, as “weed” species replace desirable.

But here, once again, we see human values define the problem with introductions. Agriculture and aesthetic concerns are human. In fact, all the concerns about introduced species are anthropocentric, making them the subject of sociology and anthropology, not biology.

However, the field of invasion biology “has emerged in recent decades to combat alleged threats to biosecurity a space. Biosafety is the new deadline for invasive species control. In 2004, New Zealand experienced a new agency Biosecurity New Zealand. According is website, www. biosecurity.govt.nz, “Biosecurity New Zealand is passionate in his desire to keep this country free of unwanted organisms, to prevent or reduce damage can cause these should occur, and to protect and preserve our land, our water, our industry and our people. ”

This is a rational, scientific agenda, or a politician?

Zelante and the “passion” agency wants to keep the country “free from unwanted organisms.” What define what is “unwanted”. According to their mission, “unwanted” includes species that may surface health, the environment or the economy. But also, “The things that define us as a quintessential country-these things make our country and our spirit unique and special in the world.”

Here the nationalist agenda of biosafety is clear. One might think biosecurity should address issues like the spread of anthrax. For New Zealand, is concerned with the preservation of national identity, which is somehow connected to the environment. To these New Zealanders are the environment. Outside by foreigners threaten their identity and spirit.

This same identification with the environment was part of the environmental Nazi sentiment during the Third Reich. In fact, the Nazis planned to create hunting preserves conquered eastern forests, which wanted to stock with European bison, bear, wolf, and the oldest of mega-fauna as possible. They wanted to eliminate all “foreign” species from Europe.

Intolerance for foreigners knows no boundaries here. If the Nazis were able to extend their hatred for foreigners to include humans (ie, Jews, homosexuals, blacks, etc.), could the New Zealanders and those who are planning following their lead to the same? Biosafety can lead to a loss of security policy?

Consider the following example.

I imagine that owned a large tract of land. You’ve landscaped the land only way you like, and spend much effort to maintain this way. Your place is fenced all around to keep out unwanted creatures, and maintain desirable. Beside you is another large tract of land, owned by your neighbor, which has the same concern for his place, although a different sense of aesthetics. It has many plants and animals, those who do not want.

It would be reasonable for you to have concern for “biosecurity” of the place. If weeds begin to sprout, it would be wise to vigilantly monitor them and eradicate them, if possible. Attention should be paid on any plants you brought to your place, inspection insect pests or other problems, so that it does not trouble to introduce his little world.

Imagine now that you are sharing that tract of land with other people. When the land was your only to define, there were political issues involved. It ‘been your personal taste and judgement that directed the work of managing your environment. However, living with the other adds a political dimension to your management plans. What happens if someone living with you has different values and aesthetics do? What happens if others want some of the animals and plants that your neighbor on the other side of the barricade has its place? These species should be introduced? What is the others want to eliminate some of the plants or animals that are already on your place?

Suddenly, environmental policy becomes politicized. It is no longer just your place. Things should be managed democratically, with voting all species that should stay and who should go? Unless the community is fully informed about the outcome of their environmental decisions, that even trained scientists can not predict with certainty, any decision could lead to environmental chaos and a result.

There should be a dictatorship, with the decision left to a small group of individuals? This is what is happening in New Zealand. A small group of “biosecurity” “experts” are the definition of what is “unwanted”. They are the definition of “quintessence” things that make New Zealand and the people “spirit” what is. What happens if you are part of that environment and do not agree with this definition? Maybe you are an immigrant yourself. It would keepers of this sacred spirit turn on you, too, as an enemy of the country?

Returning to our example, suppose that a group of people on the tract of land did rise to power and decide which species of plants and animals are acceptable and desired, and that they must be destroyed. And we say that people who disagree with this and are seeking to bring verbotten species are forced in accordance with laws and threats of imprisonment. This would be the guarantee of “integrity” of their homeland? Not necessarily.

Suppose that the next is a plant whose seeds are spreading to the environment. You can start several times in seed reconnaissance and destroy the plants as they appear. Or you could get at the source of seeds, that is your neighbor’s trees. The arrest of a problem at source is much more effective in the long term to handle a problem indefinitely. Thus environmental dictators in your community decide to approach your neighbor and ask their offensive eliminate trees.

Of course, the next may not be willing to remove his trees. And politics, once again, determine how this game. It will be your community force next to comply? There will be a war? Since your community has created a sort of national identity that is correlated with the species in its environment, it seems essential for the fight and preserve the identity and the environment. Biosafety becomes personal safety.

To keep the identity of your community, you must ensure, in addition, that there is no dissention from within. Those who import “foreign” thoughts and values as a threat to become much more than those who bring in “foreign” species. A community if it considers it necessary to fight for its identity and “spirit” of opposing influences from outside, and then, but also oppose such decadent influences from within.

Here’s how the Nazis used their environmental policy and exclusivity for the abhorance “foreigner” to justify the genocide. Unless you are not one of them was a stranger, and a threat to their identity.

New Zealand Biosecurity programme wants to keep out and destroy “unwanted organisms” that could threaten the “quintessence” nature of New Zealand. There is no explicit exclusion for human beings, who are also bodies. After all, people bring in these other species. Some human immigrants may pose as great a threat to the “spirit” and “quintessence” nature of New Zealand, like any other species of immigrants. In fact, men are the most “invasive species of all, since the man of activities that constitute a constant threat to human health, the environment and the economy.

It ‘just a matter of time until it becomes biocide genocide. The environment is the State. And the State belongs to everyone. The Enemy of the State must be destroyed. The Nazis showed how it works. New Zealand, and nations that want to emulate their policies, such as South Africa, Australia and the United States, are goose-stepping their way down the same dark passage.

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic disease, which is located in Hawaii. His only form of medical anthropology applied searches for the cultural / lifestyle causes of disease. His working hypothesis is that our bodies were made to be healthy, but our culture and attitudes and behaviour that instills in us can get in the way of health. By eliminating these causes, the body is allowed to heal. Since most diseases of our time are caused by our culture / lifestyle, this approach has resulted in many discoveries in the original cause, and treatment of many common diseases. E ‘can also prevention through the elimination of negative practices of life. Sydney works with his co-researcher and wife, Soma Grismaijer, and is the author of several revolutionary health books.