SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said on Thursday he has sent recommendations from his review of more than two dozen national monuments to President Donald Trump, indicating that some could be scaled back to allow for more hunting and fishing and economic development.
The recommendations follow a 120-day study of 27 national monuments across the country, created by presidents since 1996, that Trump ordered in April as part of his broader effort to increase development on federal lands.
The review has cheered energy, mining, ranching and timber advocates but has drawn widespread criticism and threats of lawsuits from conservation groups and the outdoor recreation industry.
There were fears that Zinke would recommend the outright elimination of some of the monuments on the list, but on Thursday, speaking to the Associated Press in Billings, Montana, he said he will not recommend eliminating any.
Zinke said in a statement that the recommendations would "provide a much needed change for the local communities who border and rely on these lands for hunting and fishing, economic development, traditional uses, and recreation." He did not specify which monuments he plans to recommend be scaled back.
The Associated Press reported that Zinke said he would recommend changing the boundaries for a "handful" of sites.
If you're taking millions of acres off the table for one site, you fail at knowing the definition of a monument.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-monuments-idUSKCN1B41YA
Also at RT, CNN, The Washington Post and The Hill.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday September 01 2017, @05:16PM (2 children)
The interstate project was of economic benefit in hindsight. It was for national security when it started.
Space satellites have been of enormous economic benefit in hindsight. During the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, profit and economic benefits were not seen.
Prior to Apollo there wasn't any significant market for space. It was enormously expensive to get something into orbit. A lot of that was the R&D costs of developing launch vehicles. And a huge number of unknowns that the moon shot program solved -- at great cost. No telecom company would think, hey let's put up a telecom satellite. All we have to do first is spend many billions of dollars to develop a way to launch it. And to research how to even build a satellite that can withstand the environment of space.
Profit isn't dirty, per se. But it's not the only reason to do everything. Having families and children is not profitable.
There is a word for thinking that everything revolves around profit. Psychopath. And some CEOs are.
If profit drives everything, then why don't we just strip mine the entire planet until it is totally uninhabitable. Think of the profits!
If you just want the profit above all, organized crime is the end point, so why not just skip all the middle steps and start with organized crime? There are reasons why we have government. It is to protect the public good, while allowing everyone to pursue happiness (and profit).
If we sing a slaying song tonight, what tools will be used for the slaying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @12:53AM
Satellites for the purpose of communications were one of the very first things proposed for space technology. You're just pulling shit out of your arse.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:15PM
This is nonsense as well. Eisenhower became a big fan of the idea after he saw the autobahns after the Second World War. Sure, it has military application, but it's obvious that an efficient nation-wide transportation system will have massive economic benefits as well.
And yet parents value their children more than they do the resources consumed in raising those children. That is what profit is about, whether the specific financial version or the general one, getting more out than you put in.