Thursday, November 17, 2005

Even Nuttier than the Times

Well, not always. The San Francisco Chronicle has an excellent article about how the idea that "global warming" is caused by humans is unscientific groupthink. It's a fantastic article and I encourage you all to read it.

However, the Chronicle also published this whopper by Gregory Dicum, a man who hopes the human race will die off.

"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."


"As long as there's one breeding couple," he says cheerfully, "we're in danger of being right back here again. Wherever humans live, not much else lives. It isn't that we're evil and want to kill everything -- it's just how we live."

I understand this position. Humans eat animals and use resources. Therefore we are all bad. I've seen this since my 9th grade science tests, when I refused to answer questions that were worded, "What is the greatest danger to the Earth?" and the right answer was "humans."

However, this is just lunacy at its best. These people, whose motto is "May we live long and die out," don't have the faintest clue about how the world works.

"We certainly do as much as we can to limit our consumption," says Mike Brune [environmental activist]. "We made sure we live near mass transit. We have one of the new Priuses. We buy organic food almost exclusively. We feel that it's very important to connect our personal values to all aspects of how we live: where we work, what we eat, what we buy."

Why do I point this out? Simple - organic food does jack to help the environment. My father, who is a farmer in central Iowa, could easily grow organic produce. However, he doesn't because it is worse for the environment. Yes, that's right. While he drives over his field four times a year (once to spray chemical, once to plant, once to spray again, and once to harvest) (and yes, the chemical is one compound that is active by contact only and is inert once it interacts with water - you can drink it if you want to) if he used no chemicals he would have to drive over his field up to a dozen times to do tillage each year. Besides eroding the soil into oblivion (erosion which he has completely stopped due to a "no till" practice" he would burn well over twice as much fuel as he does now. How does that fit into environmentalists' ideas about conservation?

Anyway, the real laugh here is that there is a group operating in the US that believes this:

Human activities -- from development to travel, from farming to just turning on the lights at night -- are damaging the biosphere. More people means more damage. So if fewer people means less destruction, wouldn't no people at all be the best solution for the planet?

And I say - go right ahead and not reproduce. It'll clear up this craziness right quick.

No comments: