13 December 2014

Why would William McDonald defend Nazca desecration?

Greenpeace has desecrated a sacred archaeological site in Peru in recent days as part of an AGW-related protest. The result of their renewable-energy-advocating sign unfurling can be seen in the red dotted line here:

1000's of years ago people decided, as part of their religious observations, to make a picture of a hummingbird, and took the time to walk only in very precise lines, so that the images -- formed from lighter coloured clay being brought to the surface by the trampling -- could be preserved and viewed by the gods.

The pictures can only be seen from the sky, and so couldn't easily be viewed and enjoyed by any humans on the ground. Only modern aircraft allow us to seen what must have been intended for heavenly viewers.

Subsequent ancient Peruvian generations recognised the value and significance of these glyphs and made it a sacred site, successfully preserved for 1000s of years.

And then along comes Greenpeace, like a bull in a china shop and adds their own crude lines.  The Nazca Lines are situated in an extreme desert, where it virtually never rains, so these damaging footprints could potentially last 1000s of years.

Greenpeace are remorseful and have apologised for this tragedy. The activists involved could be jailed by Peru.

Greenpeace international director Kumi Naidoo is flying over there to personally apologise (shame about the flight's carbon emissions, but oh well -- Kumi does a lot of commuting by plane so nothing new for him).
But strangely, a fellow called William A. McDonald, CEO of suckerfreegames.com, is out there defending these Greenpeace actions:

(The link I gave there is to the above photo.)

He seems to be making the argument that because there are what he describes as "obvious" tire marks, the Nazca Lines are already desecrated, so Greenpeace's damage was not much in the scheme of things. 

McDonald argues: Greenpeace merely walked there, not rode a motorbike, so what harm can it do to just walk there?

That's strange logic as, in my opinion, a bunch of people walking in that location is actually much worse then someone riding through on a motorcycle. And in any case two wrongs don't make a right.

So, some motorbike messed it up previously, therefore Greenpeace can do what they like?  

It's a form of rationlisation characteristic of the political left, where the ends justify the means, and Greenpeace's anti-global warming message is more important to them than preserving ancient treasures. It's quite disturbing really.

No comments:

Post a Comment