Man vs. Mollusks?
ALL
What GMO Labels Really Tell Us
by Amanda Maxham | July 29, 2014
This Earth Day, Shrug Off Environmentalist Fear and Guilt
by Amanda Maxham | April 22, 2014
Man vs. Mollusks?
by Amanda Maxham | August 06, 2013
Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism
by Keith Lockitch | September 2009
No More Green Guilt
by Keith Lockitch | May 01, 2009
A Critique of Climate Change Science and Policy
by Keith Lockitch | April 13, 2009
The Real Meaning of Earth Hour
by Keith Lockitch | March 23, 2009
The Green Energy Fantasy
by Keith Lockitch | February 25, 2009
No “Footprint,” No Life
by Keith Lockitch | January 09, 2009
It Isn’t Easy Being Green
by Keith Lockitch | October 16, 2007
Rachel Carson’s Genocide
by Keith Lockitch | May 23, 2007
Reject Environmentalism, Not DDT
by Keith Lockitch | September 19, 2006
Who Will Defend Industry from Eco-Terrorism?
by Onkar Ghate | February 08, 2006
POV: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
by Ayn Rand | 1970

MORE FROM THE BLOG:

Science And Industrialization in Voice for Reason
Science & IndustrializationEnvironmental Issues

Man vs. Mollusks?

by Amanda Maxham | August 06, 2013 | Blue Ridge Outdoors

The quickest way to crush a development, water, engineering, or other similar project is to find an endangered species there.

It doesn’t matter if you are rebuilding your home after a devastating hurricane, breaking ground for a new hospital, using desert land for outdoor recreation, or diverting river water to help alleviate the effects of a drought. If a sand crab, flower-loving fly, fringe-toed lizard, or sheepnose mussel is found nearby, the “keep out” signs go up and human activity is stopped in its tracks.

In Atlanta in 2007, in the midst of a devastating drought, billions of gallons of much needed lake water were deemed off limits. That water was instead sent downstream, for the sake of a particular species of mussel. In another case, concern over the heelsplitter mussel led to a moratorium on river water extraction in Mint Hill, North Carolina, leaving residents without access to clean water for eleven years.

These examples aren’t anomalies. They are an expression of the ideas animating the environmentalist movement: That it is wrong for human beings to impact nature, especially if our actions affect endangered species. They consistently prioritize other species above human beings, regardless of what that means for human welfare.

The goal is not to protect nature for human enjoyment — it’s to protect nature from human beings. Forget about enjoying canoeing, swimming or contemplating a tranquil creek. Environmentalists regularly use the Endangered Species Act to limit or ban such activities. Nature, on their view, is intrinsically valuable and even in the process of enjoying it, human beings inevitably stamp their “footprint” on it.

But limiting human beings’ impact on nature harms human beings. Extracting water, for example, is just one of the many feats of engineering that make our lives happier, longer and better. We no longer have to worry about living near to a supply of freshwater such as a river or a lake, because we have the technology to bring that water to where people need it. But if the environmentalist idea that it is wrong to impact nature had been in vogue a century ago, cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas would have never become anything more than desert outposts.

Human life and happiness requires that we use and transform the world around us. Sometimes that means building flood walls, dams, or extracting water for use in urban areas, other times it means maintaining waterways to enjoy the wildlife naturally found there. But it certainly doesn’t mean sacrificing people to mollusks.

About The Author

Amanda Maxham

Former junior fellow and later a research associate (2012-2018), Ayn Rand Institute