Wednesday, July 18, 2007
And then if he tells me what pills to get then I have to go to the place to get them and they want money too. But you see, this place already has a lot of pills so can't they just give me a few? The guy there wanted money for them. Can't someone just give me the money? My neighbors won't give me the money but maybe Government can make them give me the money. What about the pill companies. They must have a lot of pills. Can't they just give me a couple when I need them? That's no fair either. They already know what pills work so why don't they just give them to me or give the recipe to someone who can make them for me? The people in Canada make them for cheaper because Government makes them make the pills cheaper so can't Government here just make the pill company make them cheaper? No fair. All these guys learn a lot about these pills but now they know which ones work so can't they just tell me how to make them or give me some?
And Government even takes care of prisoners and stuff and they don't kill them or let them die but then Government don't give the money to the doctor for the free people. No fair.
So here my answer. People should just go to the guys who know stuff about medicine and know how to make the pills and they should just tell us what to do and if they want pay then Government should make someone else pay them for me or Government put them in jail for not paying for me. That's fair.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
If you think my post "Hollywood's Carbon Footprint" was a semi-serious reductio ad absurdum of the environmental movements' twisted philosophy you were right. But as the linked article shows, they are really serious.
John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, said Saturday that Live Earth will produce about
74,500 tons of the gas. "We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic.
Certainly, on the way into the show, some of the 65,000 people who'd spent $110 on a ticket appeared unaware of the seven-point pledge that Al Gore, the event's chief impresario, had asked all spectators to make. Asked about it, they offered blank looks and said they were there for Madonna (whose annual carbon footprint, according to Buckley, is 1,018 tons -- about 92 times the 11 tons an average person uses per year)But even more important than the blundering hypocrisy and childish stupidity of the "Live Earth" concert and the real point of my "Hollywood" post is neatly summarized by the following seemingly innocuous quote:
...And a series of public information films featuring celebrities such as Penelope Cruz urged people to turn thermostats down and carpool while, in between, montages of happy animals were contrasted with pollution-belching power stations.
"I think that this will be very inspiring and show people that you can put on concerts and tours in a much greener way," he said. "I understand concerns about Madonna's carbon footprint. But nobody's perfect, and at least we are now having an interesting debate about it, which will change behavior."
"Nobody's perfect" he say. This is the essence of environmentalism.
According to Buckley, what do you think it would mean to be "perfect"? Although he does not say, the answer is obvious and follows logically from the premises of environmentalism: NO "carbon footprint".
Just as religious altruism pits man's fundamental nature against him by demanding he be a self-sacrificial animal for God, so environmentalist altruism pits man's fundamental nature against him by demanding he be a self-sacrificial animal for Earth. Both philosophy's turn man into a guilt-ridden hulk never able to truly be "perfect" since perfection under either version would literally mean death. In Christianity, they call man's inherent imperfection his "Original Sin." In environmentalism, they call it his "Carbon Footprint."
Afterall, eating is selfish and requires us to use the products of our labor which must be a part of the earth, but I guess nobody's perfect. Living in a home with our families requires using the earth for materials, but I guess nobody's perfect. Everything from the most primitive tool to a jet engine is the product of the application of human reason to the problems of human survival, but nobody's perfect. This is why no solution will appease the environmentalists in principle. As long as man lives on earth, he must use it to survive. If we colonize another planet then we will use it. I can't wait for "Live Mars."
So is this an extreme interpretation? What "carbon footprint" would appease Buckley? Is it 10 tons per year or 1 ton per year? Who should be the judge of this? For now, the environmentalists overtly seem only interested in less. However, just as religionists of the past and present attempt to enforce their orthodoxy on us in order to realize their vision of "perfection" we are now seeing the inevitable result of the environmentalist crusade for their vision of "perfection." As they stop companies from drilling for oil, expanding refinery capacity, building biotech parks or highways or homes lest they interfere with swamps and orange groves or snail darters we will continue to experience the direct impact of aspiring to environmentalist "perfection."
Friday, July 6, 2007
Here are some significant points from the linked article:
* Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed.
* The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter.
* They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.
* "They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.
* They found the temperature varied widely, by as much as 15 C (27 F) over the 800,000 years.
* In the last Ice Age, which ended around 11,000 years ago, the temperature was 10 C (18 F) lower than today.
So, in other words, a lush forest existed in Greenland a few hundred thousand years ago, temperature has varied over 27 degrees F over 800,000 years, and 100,000 years ago the temperature was 9 degrees F warmer yet even then the glaciers didn't completely melt.
I guess this just shows that climate does change afterall and yet here we are. And they didn't even have air conditioning back then much less climate computer models so warming should be no problem for us. I would like to stage a global concert to bring back the Greenland forest. Are we supposed to be saving the forests? So isn't climate change good if we get more forest and less glaciers? That would mean more wood and toilet paper so then Sheryl Crow can be happy and stop holding her energy gobbling concerts to raise "awareness". Then things will be perfect or at least not August color.