Sunday, April 2, 2017

Going Green Isn't Wrong: It's Evil!

By Rich Kozlovich

We have earned the right to be proud to called exterminators - that's history, and that history  is incontestable.  However, I also think it's clear we've done a poor job of educating the public making that case.

In recent years the National Pest Management Association implemented the Professional Pest Management Alliance program to promote our industry.  And I think those who've been responsible for that program have been hard working and dedicated in their efforts to educate the pubic as to how important we are maintaining society's freedom from disease, plague, pestilence and early death - commonly called dystopia - the opposite of utopia. 

Who has brought about dystopia  in any part of the world, the green movement or us?  This article is the first in a series.  We will explore the results of the green movement's schemes, because it's my contention no mission of education can be fulfilled properly without attacking lies, misinformation, junk science and those who promote it. 

So who's going to do it?  The trade journals won't do it.  They're just not designed for that kind of confrontational advocacy.  The PPMA won't do it because they were created as the promotional arm of the NPMA, and promotion and confrontation are largely antithetical to each other. 

So who's going to do it?  Well..... I guess that leaves me.  I will happily share that distinction with anyone from the industry who wishes to jump into this ....but as of right now .... I seem to be the only voice in the wilderness.

So much of what has gone right in the world has been the result of a strong chemical industry, and in our case - pesticides - those who manufacture them, those who sell them and those who apply them.  Pesticides transformed this nation because this nation was full of people who embraced a vision of industrial progress.  We need to get this, accept this, and make sure this rings as clear as a bell. 

Pesticides were brought into common use because there really was a need.

This clabber from green groups and their fellow travelers claiming we "don't need pesticides" is blatantly false, stunningly unscientific, amazingly unrealistic and only those who're ideologically delusional can accept that. The difference between good health, plenty of food, and the crisis of third world living, is the acceptance and extensive use of effective chemistry.

Picture this: A pesticide salesman goes to an international agriculture conference and tells the farmers attending (Farmers being the most frugal people on the planet, and frugal doesn't mean cheap - it means unwilling to waste) he has to sell a million dollars of pesticides this year or he'll lose his job. And of course these frugal farmers - who are unwilling to waste - and who don't really need pesticides say - sure we'll be glad to spend a million dollars unnecessarily if that'll help you out.

Yeah, right!

In order to change the way people think about pesticides, human health and the environment is to challenge each and every false claim about chemicals. And not just pesticides, but chemicals as a whole, and industrial advacement!  Including challenging false claims about vaccinations.

We need make the world aware nature isn't the "Mother Nature" we see in television ads. Nature isn't really a person, nature doesn't love us, nature doesn't hate us, nature is a biological machine, and that machine is working hard to kill us each and every day with biological agents, bad weather, earth quakes, tidal waves, freezing weather, roasting heat, disease and get the picture, most of which we can do little about. In short - going natural puts us in an amazingly inhospitable environment.  An environment the green movement insists is the only way to save us from mankind.  Save us from what?  Long and healthy lives? 

Chemistry is the number two key improver of that situation. What's number one? Readily accessible inexpensive energy. Both of which are under constant attack by the green movement. Both of which are essential to modern civilized societies.

As exterminators we have a responsibility to make our environment as good for humanity as is possible.  As moral human beings we have a responsibility to expose the lies of the green movement for the good of humanity. 

Everyone demands perfection, but the best we can possibly deliver is the most acceptable imperfection. And that requires work, thinking, resolution and clarity of thought.  We have to get rid of these green infestations of thought such as placing the "rights" of animals over what's good for humanity. Those animals and plants which are going extinct are biologically incompetent and need to be replaced with species that are capable of surviving.

Tell me - what horrible thing happened when the dodo bird went extinct around 1700? Well, there's a tree on the island of Mauritius just east of Madagascar, called the tambalacoque tree, that was alleged to being going extinct because the only way it could propagate itself was if the seeds passed through the digestive system of the dodo. And since the dodo was extinct - so too was this tree going to disappear. what?  If this tree was that biolgicially incompetent it deserved to go extinct, but there's only one problem with this story. It's a lie!

So in point of fact the disappearance of the dodo caused - nothing!

Good environmental stewardship can only be achieved with modern chemistry and advancements in genetic modifications in plants, and at some point - animals.  Otherwise massive amounts of land will be needed to grow all the food necessary to keep humanity from starving - land that's not available in much of the world.  Norman Borlaug said if we eliminated the tools of modern agriculture in the U.S. we would need the equilivelant land mass of everything East of the Mississippi River, with the exception of three states, to make up the difference in food production.  

The primary thing needed for a strong and health environment is development. It's the undeveloped and underdeveloped nations that have the worst environments.  When you eliminate industry you do a number of things that are detrimental to mankind and the environment.
  • First you make everyone poor, which makes it impossible to afford the cost of strong environmental policies. 
  • Second, when you eliminate cheap, readily available energy that allows people to heat and cool their homes, you create misery and even death.  Eastern Europe had people freezing to death becuase of a lack of energy.  Why did this lack occur.  Because they were attempting to meet idiotic CO2 standards involving the false Global Warming scare. 
  • Third, burning wood for cooking in much of the world means breathing smoky air and respiratory problems.
  • Fourth, public water systems will disappear causing water borne illnesses to skyrocket, as it did in South America when environmentalists convinced leaders chlorine in water caused cancer.
  • Fifth, there will be no large scale sanitation programs to control sewage. People will live in filth.
  • Sixth,  the problems caused by a lack of modern transportation.
Another problem we need to deal with is the definition of words.  Let's stop worrying we won't be considered "reasonable".  That's a false narrative.  The word reasonable means to have sound judgment, being fair, sensible, rational, logical, just, practical, realistic, intelligent, wise, credible, believable, plausable and sound. 

When accused of not being reasonable my response is now and has always been - when have I ever not been reasonable?  Being reasonable means acting in accord with reason.    If being reasonable is to be defined as going along to get along I have to ask:  What great obstacle was ever overcome by being "reasonable"?

No comments: