Since following Fox News and Glenn Beck, I’ve seen some bat $#!* crazy ideas, and this one ranks pretty high on the list. John Stossel, on Glenn Beck’s Friday show, proposed the idea that killing and eating endangered species would save them. For those wanting clarification, he suggested we farm endangered species for our consumption and this will, somehow, not make them endangered. Of course, he neglects these simple facts – when you dispose of something, you have less of that thing, consumption is the cause of some species being extinct and not all species are edible, or desirable. I don’t think that really needed to be said, but hey, you never know…

Original Story

Share this article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Pinterest
  • MySpace
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • Tumblr
  • Instapaper
  • Blogger
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
468 ad

4 Responses to “John Stossel on Glenn Beck – Eat Endangered Species”

  1. This idea is only ridiculous to idiots like you who refuse to think outside the box, and refuse to acknowledge basic economic FACT. Obviously consuming exotic animals is a radical idea, but to say something like this wouldn’t increase the population of that particular animal is simply retarded. People say, “oh, well how are we saving them by consuming them? Logically, the more you consume of something, the less you have of it”. Wrong. If there is an incentive to keep the animals alive, they are going to stay alive, and production of those animals will increase. Basic FREE MARKET ideas. The idea in this case is to eat them. By eating these animals, the market has now created a profit motive for the people selling the animals. When the demand is there, supply is going to follow, and again, production of the animals will increase, thus increasing the population of the animal, thus proving Stossel to be right.

  2. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    There may be an economic solution to this issue, but that’s not the point. The point is that it will not help preserve the wild endangered species. Preserving nature and wild animals is far more important than profit motive, which serves no purpose whatsoever in this case. Sure, animals can be raised on farms and consumed, and their numbers replenished. They’re called cows, chickens, pigs, etc. Also, there are reasons certain animals are raised on farms for human consumption over others, namely desirability and feasibility.

  3. Are you that dim? By your logic, the forests would all be gone because we’ve cut them all down for lumber and toilet paper. Yet the USA has more forested land now then back when our country was formed.

    If we start a business of eating spotted owls, people will raise owls like other animals for slaughter. Last I saw, we had no shortage of cows, chickens and pigs.

  4. FoxNewsBoycott says:

    Not only is the deforestation example a bad one, you’re completely wrong according to Wikipedia… Please cite your source.

    In 2005 the US was the 7th highest ranked country as far as losing old growth forests. When the Europeans arrived in the US, roughly half of the land area was forest, about 4million square km. In 1952 the amount of forest peaked to around 3million square km as crop land reverted back. Since 1963, it’s been declining. An estimated 93,000 square km of forest land will be lost by 2050, a 3% reduction from 1997.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.