(NOTE: As I write this article I'm watching Fox News and the rescue of a German Shepherd standing on a flooded dam with no way off. I found it ironic, and I will use my master writing skills to weave this irony into the article.)
I remember when I was in grade school (late 60's) our science teacher left copies the Scientific American lying around to capture our interest with their big full color pictures of Saturn, Tesla Coils throwing off huge sparks, and speculative articles about laser beams. What a great magazine that used to be before the environmental crazies took it over. Here is the latest from SA:
"Two typical German shepherds kept as pets in Europe or the U.S. consume more in a year than the average person living in Bangladesh, according to research by sustainability experts Brenda and Robert Vale of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand." Article can be found here. (Yawn...)
In that same science class, our teacher taught us how to scrutinize data. OK SA, let's unpack your statement:
- Are German Shepherds in New Zealand more "environmentally friendly" then German Shepherds in the U.S. or Europe, or don't you have German Shepherds in New Zealand?
- It's OK to have one German Shepherd, just not two, because the pet threshold test is whether or not it consumes more than the average Bangladeshian?
- Horses eat way more than German Shepherds. What do you have against German Shepherds that you don't against horses, especially wild ones that chew up wilderness preserves?
- Whales eat way more than horses. In fact, a Killer Whale could eat several Bangladeshians in one gulp.
- German Shepherds help find Bangladeshians when after an earthquake their poorly built apartments fall on top of them.
- In America, we send our Coast Guard helicopters to save one trapped German Shepherd because we're good like that.
I could rest my case right there, but enviro-crazies don't ever stop, so why should I?
Paragraph 2 of this article does not tie into the premise of paragraph 1, proving on the surface that this was poorly written from the start. So let's drill down (intentional choice of words) on this:
"So are the world's environmental ills really a result of the burgeoning number of humans on the planet—predicted to reach at least nine billion people by 2050?"
I will forward an hypothesis: The world's environmental ills are largely a result of poorly researched, poorly written, pseudo-intellectual drivel, with the underlying goal being government central planning (communist totalitarianism), the oppression of religious freedom, and the advancement of world eugenics.
Let's unpack another paragraph from the same article:
"Americans alone use up 88 kilograms of stuff (such as food and water but also plastics, metals and other things) per day, or roughly one me, day in and day out."
Poorly written. Observe:
- How much of that 88 kilograms is food and water? The breakdown if this statistic is an essential element to support your argument.
- How much do you consume a day? You don't say. If you consume 85 kilograms a day, that would only be a difference of 3 kilograms from an American, but that would not be a shocking statistic.
- 88 Kilograms is 193.6 pounds. You don't tell us how tall you are. If you are 5'5", you are fat and are probably consuming more than your Utopian dream government would allow.
- You don't cite you source for this statistic which makes your article an 'opinion' piece and unscientific; something else I learned in 6th grade.
Arguing against enviro-crazies is too easy. What they like to do is 1)tell you how educated they are or 2)quote someone they think is highly educated and tell you that you're stupid (and dangerous) for even questioning them (remember Al Gore saying the debate is over...). Hey David B., wisdom beats education every time (example Abraham Lincoln who could not produce a degree). Some of the worlds most dangerous people were some of the worlds most educated (example:Dr. Eduard Wirths). In the words of Apostle Paul: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". Always add a hefty amount of humility to your research because what you think is smart, may not be wise.
This aforementioned SA article was about Consumerism and how it is threatening the planet and human extinction. Earth to David Biello, if you live, you must consume, and apparently everyone consumes too much except you. Have you even seen the Japanese factory that made the laptop you wrote your drivel on? Imagine the possibility that with your computer purchase, you helped pay for a lightly fried in sesame oil plate of whale meat for a Japanese Executive. Or was your computer made in Bangladesh? How much money in aircraft parking does New Zealand charge the U.S. for transient, JET-A fuel guzzling earth damaging C-17's at Christ Church making milk runs in and out of Antarctica so scientists can gather ice (before it supposedly all melts)? Have you seen the mess these scientific camps in Antarctica make? It's all staged out of your country baby.
And for the final twist of the knife to prove this article is the wretched work of America hating propagandists:
"And consumerism isn't even delivering on its own promise—a better life. ["Not only is consumer culture causing unprecedented environmental havoc, it is in many cases not delivering the well-being for human beings it is supposed to,"] argued Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute..."
Chris/ David: I just witnessed a German Shepherd in California being rescued from a flood by a U.S. Coast Guard H-65 "Dolphin" - Short Range Recovery Helicopter at a cost of 3,910 dollars per hour and used more gas for that then I will use to get to work in a few months. Want to know why?
- Because capitalists made the money that bought the helicopter, trained the pilots, trained the rescue crews, bought the gas and the base and hanger to house it all. Millions were spent to make this happen because we believe in a higher being and we have the means to do it.
- Because we can rescue a German Shepherd and Haitian earth quake victims at the same time. What is your country doing in Haiti?
- Because none of this would happen in a Communist Utopian society. Imagine Vietnam launching helicopters to rescue a dog.
What really creeps me out about articles from "sustainability experts" is that somehow they always know what's best for us. I'm sure David Biello doesn't consider himself dangerous, and that's the problem: he doesn't see that this is the kind of thinking that created Nazi Germany, and eugenics. Five bucks will get you ten that David is pro-abortion, because in his mind the world is getting more and more crowded and who wants those little moochers eating his share of the limited supply of organic tomatoes?
The folks at SA have gotten really sloppy about their scientific journal. They should be embarrassed that someone without a a 4-year degree can poke so many holes in your stupid ideology. I think they owe Americans, the Coast Guard, and German Shepherds an apology and must get some better writers who love the scientific process better than they love their own agenda.