A) You provide no evidence for your major claim (that the people fighting change are doing it for selfish motivations). Neither in general, nor in the case of this specific desert.
B) Even if the _motivations_ for doing something were selfish, it could be that the actual environmental concerns themselves were valid.
Don't get me wrong, the phenomenon that you speak of (social parasites) does exist. But in this case I was hoping for a more environmental (as opposed to sociological) discussion. Just to be clear, you don't disagree that valid environmental concerns could exist, right?
"The Indian Express reports that the Intelligence Bureau submitted a report to the prime minister’s office saying Greenpeace was “negatively impacting economic development” through political activism and its anti-fossil fuels agenda. The reports says that Greenpeace activities have reduced the country’s GDP by 2 to 3 percent a year."
And to be precise about the topic - it is Lael Parrott's selfish interest to finance her 'research' in Okanagon that stinks from this PR article.
You keep talking about agencies, or about saving species (the benefit of which can be debatable depending on the species) and aren't really addressing my point. Conditions of the environment exist that will kill you.
You rhetoric style makes it really difficult to have a rational conversation with you.
@oneloop. HN does not techically provide me reply link, so I reply here - Sure thing. I told you earlier, I am based on oxydation as a life form. Remove oxygen - I die. And speaking of desert - me and you will die there too, being left in the middle of it. So what?
So you do agree that some conditions of the environment will have negative consequences for humans, or don't you?
Are you really saying that you need financing to get evidence to back up your original claims?