The Diversity Game

Get ready for the next big lie, which is biodiversity. It is the claim that a “global extinction crisis looms,” as the Washington Post reported on Oct. 27. In June, delegates from 200 nations gathered in Busan, a South Korean port city, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a platform similar to that of the discredited IPCC, but with the goal of denying vast areas of the earth from the development needed to feed six billion people and provide the raw materials vital to the energy required for a modern technological society dependent on electricity and transportation fuels. The reason for the gathering was the alleged extinction of nearly 26,000 species across the globe. The list was compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which purports to count all the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish in the world to determine how “imperiled” they are. The very idea evokes incredulity. In the same way people were told that the global warmers could predict the temperature of the Earth 50 to 100 years from now, we are expected to believe that all current species are imperiled. Just as humans were blamed for a non-existent rise in the Earth’s temperature, human are blamed for a massive and fictional extinction. -CNS News

Diversity is such a wonderfully pliable concept; it can mean just about anything you want it to mean. In the academic, political, and media worlds, it means a bunch of people who look completely different all saying the same thing. In the natural world, it means having a lot of species to inhabit a lot of niches. The coming hue and cry is that it doesn’t matter if there is global climate change or not —that what matters is habitat destruction through any means, causing species to become extinct. And that extinction of any species is bad, almost as a matter of religious belief.

The problem, of course, from an evolutionary perspective is: why is it bad for species to become extinct? Evolution is a directionless, amoral process —”Evolution” couldn’t care less whether or not a specific species survives or not, or even if life, itself, survives. Oh, you can argue that we might discover some use for each of these species we don’t know about today —but isn’t that arguing against yourself? If species are only to be kept around because they might be useful at some future point, then doesn’t it all come down to pragmatic economics?

No, because, as always, there will be a religious background hidden under the covers of science… And it will, of course, be a pagan worldview, where Evolution isn’t directionless, but the directed work of “life itself,” cast as “mother Earth,” leading the way, and telling us which species to save, and which not to. You don’t even have to ask —humans won’t be on the “save,” list.