The Right is Wrong and the Left is Wronger

Philosophical Clarity and It's Absence

It strikes me that both the left and the right need a bit more consistency in their positions.  This is nothing new, but I thought I'd point out an area that is particularly glaring and ask the question that follows as a natural logical extension of the issue. 

It seems to me that on the right, who stereotypically oppose abortion because of the sanctity of life, they should own the environmental issue.  That is unless they are of the opinion that the unborn have a right to life on a polluted, resource depleted, world.

Similarly on the left, who stereotypically support abortion and any other method of population control,  they also support recycling, reducing, reusing.  For what?  Who are they preserving these resources for if not the future generations they are convinced the planet would be better off without?

If the right were honest and consistent in their philosophy they would be both, for all things green, and for eliminating abortion.  That way, those people they save from the abortionist would have a better planet to be born into.

 On the left, if honesty of philosophy and logic reigned, their position would be equally consistent.  Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die and we don't care what comes after so use it all up and throw it all away...Hey! I didn't say it made sense; I just said it was logically consistent. 

Environmentalists and Terrorists

It strikes me that there are some similarities between terrorists and environmentalist.  First and foremost among these similarities seems to be a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. 

The best example of this among the terrorists is, suicide bombers.  I have yet to hear of an example of an Imam strapping dynamite to himself and blowing himself to kingdom come in his hurry to get to his share of the virgins.  Instead, they choose young girls, young boys, the mentally ill (as if suicide bomber and mentally ill weren't synonyms) and they convince, drug, and blackmail them and their families into paying the last full measure of devotion, rather than paying that ultimate price themselves.

The environmentalists, at the same time are for birth control, eugenics, population control, euthanasia, etc., anything to reduce the Earth's human population.  Anything except NOT having children themselves or better yet, committing suicide themselves.  No, like the Imams, they are too important to their cause to make that ultimate sacrifice.

So the next time you hear them espousing the righteousness of their cause I think your best response may be, "I'll follow where you lead, right up to the point where it appears to be a bad idea."  Suicide? You go first.  Not having children? How many are you not having?  Virgins from Allah? You go on ahead!  Letting our older parents, disabled children or the other weak among us die?  Why don't we start with you and yours?  Once you lead by example, we'll decide if the example is worth following.  That's a far better method of leadership and one that's far less gutless than what is currently practiced by the environmentalists and the atheists.

Confused? Me too! What does "Save the Planet" Mean?

I hear people use the term save the planet.  I must confess I am confused.  Save it from what?  Save it for whom?  Save it to what end?  Is it in danger of destruction?  If so, destroyed in what manner?  Do people who use this term speak English as a first language?

People who use this term usually are trying to motivate people to take some type of action.  eg. You should recycle to save the planet.  Does that mean if I don't recycle, the planet will be hit by a meteor?  Clearly, that isn't the case.  There is no connection (that I've heard anyone make) between my recycling and the course of asteroids in their path.  The only thing I can figure is that they must not mean "saved from utter and complete destruction" as in asteroid collision, sun going nova, black hole destruction.  Even nuclear weapons would likely leave roaches and critters in the oceans.

Perhaps when people use the term they mean save the planet from being made unlivable to human beings.  Have any of these people seen pictures of slums in the worst of South America or Asia?  People can live quite successfully in the worst kind of filth.  My observation is that pollution, litter, clutter, debris, man-made detritus, while not pretty don't make an area uninhabitable.  This means that when people use the term "save the planet" they don't mean saved so that the planet will continue to support human life.  There is no evidence that my failure to recycle will leave the planet uninhabitable.

Perhaps when people use the term save the planet, they mean improved so that the carrying capacity of the planet for human habitation is increased.  That since the human population is increasing, they are concerned for future generations reaching some level of overpopulation and thus they wan't to increase the amount of arable land that is being farmed.  Their actions though, preserving forests, protesting population growth, advocating abortion, doesn't support the hypothesis that these people are into preserving and extending the species.

This can only mean that people who use the term save the planet must mean "lower the carrying capacity of the planet for human beings".  Use less to preserve a natural environment for other species use.  Because somehow when a whale kills and eats a fish, that's better than when a human kills and eats the fish.  From the fishes point of view I don't see the difference. 

The problem is that this philosophy is bankrupt and illogical to its very core.  Extinction as a matter of natural selection (random) is good.  Extinction as a matter of human intervention (purposeful) is bad.  Resource use by animals and plants (good).  Resource use by people (bad).  More mousquitos and roaches (good)?  Less humans (bad)?  I wonder if cattle, dogs, cats, and other species that have thrived as a function of their usefulness to humans would agree.  In fact, if you want to save a species from extinction prove that is has a commercial value.  It will be cultivated, and thrive, parrots, alligators, buffalo.  They all have done well as cultivated by humans.  On the other hand, dinosaurs, mammoths, etc. all suffered extincition, without human intervention.  Perhaps if humans can find a use for dinosaurs, they'll use genetic engineering and cloning to bring them back.  That should prove a moral quandry for the "save the planet crowd".  Would that be a good act or a bad one? 

From the standpoint of recycling to preserve resources for future generations, people who believe we are using things up such that they won't be available for future generations only have a point to a certain point.  Basic grade school chemistry/physics tells us "matter can neither be created nor destroyed only altered in form"  With enough energy almost anything can be made into something else.  We can recycle a car into re-smelted sheet steel.  We can turn rubber and plastic into other rubber and plastic things.  The only exception to this is natural products.  I am unaware of man's ability to make a fish or a tree.  So to the degree that "save the planet" means use each resource at a rate no higher than the earth's ability to replenish it, I'm onboard.  But to the extent that it means live in a hovel and eat dirt so that three toed sloth's have a better lifestyle, count me out.