Unfettered Capitalism Nearly Wiped Out America's Wild Animals Once. It Just May Again
Here is an inconvenient truth: our forebears used the unrestrained free market to effect a staggering destruction of continental wildlife, an unforgivable crime against evolution in America. They believed all life was created by a deity, and therefore extinction was impossible. Biblical ideas about the utility of animals encouraged them to think of creatures like beavers, sea otters, bison, passenger pigeons, and many others as simple market commodities, without value except for the money they might bring. The end result was myopic, almost casual obliteration of one ancient species after another. As a 2018 article in the National Academy of Sciences put it, since the start of the colonial age, here and elsewhere, we have destroyed half a million years of Earth's genetics, a near 'worst case scenario.'
Enacting that history, many Americans enriched themselves. Southerners who slaughtered snowy egrets on their nests for fashion industry feathers, westerners who shot down entire bison herds for tongues and hide leather, 'wolfers' who poisoned predators on behalf of the livestock industry—for their efforts, many of them joined the middle class. In a single year, market hunters in Bozeman, Mont. shipped out the body parts of about 7,700 elk, 22,000 deer, 12,000 pronghorns, 200 bighorn sheep, 1,680 wolves, 520 coyotes, and 225 bears at the time. It was a haul of wild animal parts that netted them $1.6 million in today's dollars. They told Yellowstone's superintendent that so long as the government stood aside, they planned to continue doing exactly as they wished. To be sure, the unrestrained freedom to destroy the country's wild legacy for money bought many of these people houses, islands, and ranches. John Jacob Astor, one of the country's first millionaires, became a famous and wealthy celebrity through the near eradication of beavers and otters and the vital, ancient ecologies they created.
During the years after the Civil War, America embraced an economic philosophy called laissez-faire, celebrating the notion that government should stand aside and let capitalism work. Both political parties believed in it so ardently that the federal government failed to act to save bison (now our National Mammal) or passenger pigeons, both among America's most numerous and iconic species. In the 1870s, Congress twice considered bills to make the non-Native market hunt for female bison illegal. Neither attempt became law. The first successful federal law the U.S. established to halt the slaughter of wildlife was place-specific when Congress created the country's first national park, Yellowstone, and banned hunting in the area.
In an environment so regulation-free, America's bison population plunged from roughly 30 million in 1800 to fewer than 10 million in 1865. At that point, railroad transport and new uses for bison leather ramped up a post-war, industrial level of animal destruction. In a too-late effort to halt the mayhem, General Philip Sheridan enlisted the departments of War, Interior, and Indian Affairs to drive market hunters off Indian lands. But few animals of any kind were left to save. In 1885, an estimate of 1,000 bison remained alive in the West, so few it was a scramble to preserve enough genetic diversity to save the species at all. When Congress in 1894 imposed stiff fines for killing bison and other animals in Yellowstone, Sheridan's troops were the only protectors a weak government could muster.
Then there's the pigeon story. Of all the grim capitalist crimes against American animals (and there is competition), among them are the 1840s extinction of our northern hemisphere penguin, the great auk, and an 1886 sale in London of the skins of 400,000 American hummingbirds. But the passenger pigeon's fate occupies a special place on the shelf of historical horrors. Having thrived on the continent for 15 million years, pigeons couldn't survive a mere three centuries of the free market. By 1914, they were entirely erased. Extinction is one of those non-ideological 'objective facts' and 'truths' it's hard to deny. While I'd love to see passenger pigeons de-extincted, that wouldn't change the historical lesson.
Until Congress passed a mild federal law called the Lacey Act in 1900, which banned interstate shipment of some market-killed animals and their body parts, America never stepped up to rein in capitalism's assault on the natural world. We allowed the Singer Sewing Machine company to log down the last habitat with a verified ivory-billed woodpecker population as late as the 1940s! Destroying species for money was an American freedom. Some argued it was part of our 'franchise.' In truth, it was the best example of what we mean now when we say something is 'Like the Wild West,' a place where human nature goes entirely unrestrained.
Economists have long used the fate of America's bison and pigeons in particular to argue that, sans effective regulation, market forces inevitably diminish nature's diversity. The truth is, if you're an American, an often unacknowledged result of our past of unfettered capitalism is to diminish the world you get to experience. As early as the 1850s, Henry David Thoreau lamented all the species already gone from his time: 'I should not like to think some demigod had come before me and picked out some of the best of the stars. I wish to know an entire heaven and an entire earth.' The past does not remain in the past for us, either. A great many charismatic creatures are missing from 21st-century America because of the actions of our ancestors.
Yet as part of the Trump administration's blizzard of executive orders and business-friendly policies, in March, Lee Zeldin, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, reframed the purpose of his agency, announcing 'the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.' President Trump followed that with an executive order, titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, that accused historians of 'a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Both these signal an effort to reframe our national story, emphasizing a return to the kind of unbridled economic freedom that once characterized the country's history, and coincidentally compromised many of America's most dramatic wild spectacles.
Much of this history, however, is in danger of being scrubbed, canceled, or banned from libraries. If that were to happen, it would leave future generations perplexed about why a half-century ago the U.S. needed to pass legislation like the Endangered Species Act in 1973. It would also create a public consciousness that is unable to understand our country's long practice of extending rights to those who lack them. While a new, politicized version of history is bound to deny it, expanding the circle of moral inclusion and compassion has long characterized Americans as a people. It is who we are.
Is this story ideological? I don't think so. It calls on an undeniable history to point out how nature will fare when governments are missing in action with respect to environmental regulation. It's an American story that urges us to be very suspicious of a future of unregulated capitalism. The purpose of history, after all, is not to make some look good and others bad. Its purpose is, or should be, to let us consult the past so we can create the future we want.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Non-Drinker Declines Party Invite After Host Insists They Have to Split the Alcohol Bill ‘Equally'
A man left a party planning group chat after being told he must split alcohol costs equally, despite being a non-drinker He offered to calculate his portion without alcohol and still contribute generously to the event, but was told "everyone pays equally' The drama sparked a viral debate about fairness in friendshipsA man turned to Reddit for support after a disagreement with friends over splitting party costs spiraled into a larger discussion about how non-drinkers are treated in social settings. The conflict began when his friend invited him and his girlfriend to a surprise party via a WhatsApp group. In the invite, the friend stated that 'everyone is going to split the costs equally, so even people who don't drink, please don't annoy me as I don't want to be bothered with any calculations.' The poster noted that he and his girlfriend are the only ones in the group who don't drink alcohol, and he felt uneasy about paying for something they won't consume. 'I don't think it fair for both of us to pay for the alcohol (which is usually a significant chunk of the total),' he wrote in his post. He explained that his "friends like playing drinking games that require a large amount of beer. Generally the cost of the alcohol is a significant chunk of the total cost (e.g. 30-60%).' The situation is even more complicated because his girlfriend, a student with no income, was also expected to pay equally. "I wouldn't mind much paying a bit extra as I'm doing well financially, but it doesn't sit right with me that she would have to do the same, even more so because she usually drinks/eat very little," he wrote. Wanting to offer a solution, the poster replied, 'Since I don't drink, I volunteer to make any required calculations,' hoping to ease the organizer's worries about complicated math. But the host quickly shut him down, responding, 'No, you don't get it, this is a party and everyone splits evenly, it's not about the calculations. It's nothing personal. End of the question.' Feeling dismissed, the man decided to gracefully bow out, replying, 'No worries, I'll pass,' before exiting the group chat. The situation escalated when the host removed the poster's girlfriend from the group before she had a chance to respond, which he "felt was uncalled for." Later, another friend reached out to him privately, suggesting he may have overreacted. 'Man, I have to say that your reaction was excessive, we are adults and we can spare a few extra dollars each,' the friend told him, but the poster remained unconvinced. 'I don't get it – if I was organizing I would never force people to pay for something they don't consume,' he wrote, comparing the situation to 'inviting a vegan friend to a barbecue and forcing them to split the cost of the meat.' He clarified that he's not trying to avoid contributing to the party, stating, 'Even if I don't chip-in for the alcohol, I would obviously chip-in for all the other costs (food, snacks, soft drinks, decoration, etc.).' He even offered to pay extra for the guest of honor, noting that he would "be more than willing to cover the alcohol costs for the person being celebrated.' While some commenters suggested there may be a "deeper problem," the poster insisted that he has "not been cheap with my friends in the past." Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. He also clarified that he only left the temporary WhatsApp group for the party, not the main group with all their friends. Despite the tension, he still wants to celebrate the birthday person and reached out to the organizer privately to make sure they knew he wanted 'to contribute to their gift (or food/drink quota, if that's meant as the gift).' The pal confirmed there will be a separate fund for the gift, and the poster plans to contribute despite not attending the party. Now, he's wondering if his reaction to the request was justifiable. Read the original article on People
Buzz Feed
7 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
What A.M. And P.M. Actually Stand For May Surprise You
Americans use many abbreviations in everyday speech and writing. Shorthands like 'yd' for yard and 'a/c' for air conditioning are pretty straightforward, but there are some misconceptions about others. For example, take 'a.m.' and 'p.m.' People in the US are constantly thinking and talking about time in terms of a.m. and p.m., but if you ask someone what those letters stand for, you may be surprised how little people actually know about the abbreviations. Some say it's 'after midnight' or 'past midday,' but that isn't exactly true... In fact, like many words and phrases in the English language, a.m. is short for a Latin phrase, 'ante meridiem' (or 'before midday'), while p.m. is short for 'post meridiem' (or 'after midday'). While there isn't a ton of information out there about when exactly a.m. and p.m. came into popular use in the English language, the 12-hour timekeeping system dates back to ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. During the Renaissance period, mechanical clocks with 12-hour analog dials appeared in churches and palaces throughout Europe. Today, most of the world uses a 24-hour system, while many English-speaking countries follow the 12-hour clock. In the places that use the 12-hour standard, there is some debate around what to use for noon and midnight. By convention, people in the US say 12 p.m. in reference to noon and 12 a.m. for midnight. But some believe that going from 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. and from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. is confusing. Others would argue that noon and midnight are neither a.m. nor p.m. since noon IS midday, it can't technically be ante meridiem or post meridiem midday. Likewise, midnight is both 12 hours before midday and 12 hours after midday, which makes it confusing to choose between a.m. or p.m. To avoid this confusion, many prefer '12 midnight' or '12 noon,' but that can seem a bit redundant, given that 'noon' or 'midnight' alone convey the same information. A lesser-known option is to denote noon with 'm' for 'meridiem,' as in 12 m ― though you run the risk of people interpreting that as '12 midnight.' Given all the confusion and debate, maybe we should go with the 24-hour military time and be done with it? After all, who doesn't love staying up late on Dec. 31 to shout 'Happy New Year!' at zero hundred hours? (Or is it twenty-four hundred hours?)
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
The Battle of Bunker Hill rages again -- in Gloucester
Spectators also will be able to interact with the military reenactors, as well as hundreds of 'civilian' interpreters who will depict the hardships of everyday life in the besieged town of Boston at the time of the battle. Organizers chose The spectators 'will get a very good look at what Advertisement Narrators using a sound system will describe the events in context for the audience as they unfold. A slightly compressed version of the reenactment will be staged Sunday from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. 'We'll follow the script of what already happened historically,' said Dietzel, 37, of Bridgewater. 'We have people coming from all over the country, a few coming from Canada, and a few British coming from the UK' to portray the combatants. Advertisement Although Bunker Hill technically was a British victory, the Colonial troops inflicted massive casualties on the British, who were forced to mount three assaults on the Americans' hilltop fortifications before the rebels ran out of ammunition and retreated. The British lost 1,054 killed and wounded in the battle, the first pitched conflict of the American Revolution. The Colonials suffered 450 casualties, but gained the morale-boosting confidence that they could stand and fight a disciplined army with superior numbers. 'Reenactments make history come alive in a way that you don't really get from the textbooks,' said Annie Harris, chief executive officer of the Essex National Heritage Area, one of the event's organizers. 'It was a more significant battle than many of us realize,' Harris said. 'You think about the Battle of Bunker Hill, and you see the obelisk [in Charlestown], and you don't really think much about it.' The reenactment includes what Dietzel described as a series of battle vignettes interspersed throughout the day, beginning with the approach of several ships posing as troop-bearing British naval vessels toward Half Moon Beach in Gloucester beginning about 8 a.m. Saturday. From 9 to 10 a.m., the rebels will build their redoubt, or hilltop fortification, with period hand tools. Spectators are encouraged to join the soldiers as they assemble their defenses, and to learn about their 18th-century backgrounds and motivation to take up arms against the British. From 10 to 11 a.m., British reenactors will land on Half Moon Beach. From about 1 to 2 p.m., they are scheduled to make a flanking attack on Cressy Beach. British commanders ordered this flanking move as their marines made a frontal assault on the redoubt. Advertisement The coordinated attacks were unsuccessful, as was a following frontal assault. Only on the third assault, which will be staged about 4 p.m. Saturday, did the British break through and claim victory atop Breed's Hill, the Charlestown summit where the battle actually occurred. 'If we wanted to keep this exactly right, we'd have to burn a city,' which the British did to Charlestown, 'but we can't do that,' Dietzel said with a chuckle. Dietzel said he feels honored to be able to portray Warren, a key Revolutionary figure whom he has researched extensively. 'I've been reading biographies, letters from the Massachusetts Historical Society, and attending lectures. I've been in the weeds with this man for quite some time,' Dietzel said. The goal of the reenactment, which has been years in the making, is to convey the relevance of the battle to 21st-century Americans. 'We want to make sure we do justice to this event and help share a story that's important to us all,' Dietzel added. 'I told my third-grade teacher I wanted to be a Minute Man. It's been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember.' Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at
