Any moronic membrane can tell the world we don’t need pesticides because being “natural” is sufficient for all of mankind’s needs. No one will question their right or their sincerity while making these emotion laden unscientific pronouncements. Why? Because we have all been indoctrinated by what Bjorn Lomborg calls the “litany” of the environmental movement.
By contrast, anyone who supports the use of pesticides had better watch out. No matter how accurately the information is presented. No matter how much information showing how many lives pesticides save. No matter how wise, their observations are. No matter how intelligently and logically stated their pro-pesticide position might be; their integrity and veracity will be arrogantly challenged. They will labeled as paid lackeys of big business and their views dismissed with a snort and a smirk. Not with any real facts mind you. Most of what will be heard will be unfounded personal attacks and endless debates to divert attention away from the facts. This is often followed by outright lies and cited studies that never occurred or were discredited.
Its philosophy without consequence for all of these armchair philosophers who oppose the use of pesticides but aren’t responsible to provide the protections they afford. They simply don’t have to pay any penalty for being wrong.
What I would like to know is why the burden of proof doesn’t rest upon those who call for the end of pesticides instead of those that have successfully tested the products and are saving lives, property and foodstuffs by use of them? Can we not see the inherent danger of philosophy without form? This is a concept which promotes change for philosophical reasons or “change for change sake”. Doesn’t this compel us to demand that its advocates not just talk the talk, but also actually walk the talk?
When things go down the toilet do the advocates of a certain policy pay the price for being wrong, or are others left with the bill? While the unchallenged and unchallengeable academicians and irresponsible activists live comfortably in western countries expounding endless nonsense and making unscientific claims regarding the dangers of pesticides; who will ultimately suffer when they have their way? Is it the activists or is it the poor people who have to live with the consequences of their feel good philosophies?
People make demands and put burdens on others they would never be willing to carry themselves. Activists have never seen a burden so great they wouldn’t be willing to place on someone else’s back. They feel compelled to demand all sorts of unnecessary things from society and industry.
When will the anti-pesticide fanatics put their own necks on the line for their beliefs? When will they move to the countries they have turned into an environmentalist’s paradise? You know the kind of place I’m talking about. The ones where everyone has had a loved one die from some preventable disease or have had children starve to death because environmental policies prevent them from being able to grow enough food for their families. Of course when environmentalists make statements like “better dead than riotously breeding” you have the tendency to believe they have a “feel good philosophy that is not a do good philosophy.”
I propose that we create a program of “Direct Involvement for Activism”, which is an excellent check of the sincerity and integrity of environmental activists. They can now have the joy of seeing their handy work up close and personal. This is their opportunity to step up where others have truly failed. This is a great opportunity for them to prove their integrity.
Stop crying wolf to the press and go to the paradise you have created. They then can be responsible for the health and welfare of thousands, or maybe millions of people. Step away from the rest. This truly is the chance to be different than those other wimpy protesters. Take on those responsibilities. They can now prove that they are as truly special as they think. They can go to these countries and take their children with them to show how sincere they truly are. Feel good about themselves for more than just a PhD.
Instead of just talking about what we are all doing wrong, they need to be different and make their mark. Show the rest of us how it’s done. Putting themselves and their families on the line will certainly impress me. Move to these countries and prove us all wrong. I’m willing to accept your sacrifice if it turns out you were wrong.
Eventually their moment of truth will come. Your people, who are starving to death, can be ordered to stay away from the genetically modified food because they need to give environmentalism a chance. For that brief, shining moment, you will have had the pleasure of knowing that you stood up for your principles. That is of course just before your followers bust you right in the head on the way to the warehouse. If you're willing to send the poor third worlders off to die in order for you to feel good about yourself, surely you're willing to stand there and defend your latest philosophical flavor of the day.
Let’s see now, how many volunteers do we have?
Thomas Sowell, the nationally syndicated columnist noted “The media continue to take seriously, and provide free publicity for, people who call themselves "consumer advocates" or "environmentalists," even though there are no qualifications required for these roles. All it takes are a big mouth, a big ego, a disdain for inconvenient facts and an ignorance of economics.”
He comments further, “I wish that some way could be found to add up all the staggering costs imposed on millions of ordinary people, just so a relative handful of self-righteous environmental cultists can go around feeling puffed up with themselves.” He goes on to say, “It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion.”
Before they protest maybe we should see to it that they have some basic requirements. Here is an example as to how to do this. Force them to have a track record of success in the area they are protesting. Perhaps we can set up an “Activist’s Bureau”, where they will have to register before they are allowed to protest. Under this arrangement they must meet the following criteria.
• Require protesters at the various business conferences to have started their own successful companies before we allow them actively involve themselves in public protests of others businesses. Having started businesses that failed will not count.
• Require animal rights activists to start businesses that require them to feed the world or develop medicines without animal testing. Having failed will disqualify this person as an activist.
• We can require anti-energy protesters to start businesses that provide electricity to millions of people without any of the means currently being used. Nor will presenting future possible inventions that may possibly be invented at some future possible date count as a qualification to protest.
• Anti-pesticide activists must be operating a successful business that provides the following;
o Actual protection from disease carrying pests without using registered or non-registered pesticides or chemicals in general.• If they meet the qualifications and are successful in the protest against any company or system the activists must be willing to undertake to provide the same service, product or whatever they have overturned.
o Provide protection for homes without using registered or non-registered pesticides or chemicals in general against all the things we currently provide services for.
o Must be able to grow enough food to meet the same capacity that is currently enjoyed in this country. This must be done with the same amount of landmass without fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides.
o This all must be accomplished without grant money from any source or tax incentives of any kind from the government.
o Not meeting these criteria will disqualify the person as a registered activist with the “Activists Bureau”.
o This must be done without using any of the means they have protested against.
o Failure to protect, feed or provide the services promised by the activist will require the activist to be liable to criminal and/or civil litigation. Failure to be willing to meet this final requirement will require them to “just be quiet.”