By Rich Kozlovich
Many years ago I was watching a television show dealing with how seriously peer pressure impacts children, in this case teenage children. They demonstrated a study using a classroom as the lab for this experiment in human nature. Two sentences appeared on the blackboard, sentence “A” and sentence “B”. The class was asked; “Which sentence was the longest?” I don’t actually remember which sentence was the longest, but for this commentary let’s say that sentence “B” was actually the longest. This test was structured in such a way that only a small number of the kids in each group was unaware as to what was going on and could vote which- ever way they saw fit. All the rest were in on it and their job was to vote for sentence “A” as being the longest when in reality it was the shortest. Now the question! How many of the test students voted along with the crowd for sentence “A” as being the longest, ignoring the obvious truth that sentence “B” was in reality longer? It appears that 93% of the test subjects chose to go along with the crowd rather that have the courage and integrity to stand up for the evidence of their own eyes. Going along to get along!
My original thought was that this number seems to be high. I had reason to change my view some time later. One of my accounts was a local high school where once a year I would make presentations to the science department on pesticides, the theme being, “Risk Versus Benefit”. At the beginning of each program I would write a number on the blackboard (which was always around 50,000) and tell each class this was how many people died last year as a result of using this product. Then I would ask, “Should this product be removed from the market?” The answer was always a resounding “Yes”. At the end of each class I would tell them that these people were killed on the nation’s highways by automobiles. Then I would ask; “How many of you want to do away with cars?” In every class except one, they all wanted to keep cars on the highways. Out of about 200 students only one was willing to stand up and say, “Get rid of them”. Is this a going along to get along attitude being expressed here? Is this a matter of personal self interests? Probably a little of both, it did make me wonder; is 93% a valid number?
Although a recent study actually put the number at 95%, studies have a way of proving what the creator of the study wants proven. Therefore there is no way of knowing if 93% is a truly reliable number. Does it matter? Would it matter if the numbers were 90% or 80% or even less? Probably not, because science should be proving things that we can easily see going on around us and our own experiences in life show that the pressure on youngsters to go along is tremendous and most youngsters succumb to that pressure in greater or lesser degrees.
What is the point of all of this? The desire of young people to fit in is well known, but this isn’t really the issue. The real issue is this. How serious is this problem as we age? Quite frankly, I don’t think it changes all that much except on little issues. Adults have the courage to stand up for issues that don’t amount to much. I used to work with someone who was always the first to stand up and be counted. Always the first to criticize over any tiny issue that really didn’t matter much and would have had little impact on anything, especially his job. How did he respond when a serious issue arose between the company and the employees? Such as a change in how we were to be compensated? This was one of those issues where standing up and being counted could possibly cost you your job. The silence was deafening.
Adults, like children, also have convenient memories. Some years later at a social gathering this came up in discussion and his recollection was, “if you remember, I was the only one to speak out on this issue”. Since he was generally regarded as being outspoken no one questioned it, at least until someone actually pointed out what was actually said and happened at that meeting. Memories became clear again because it was pointed out that after the boss temporarily walked out of the room his comment to the only one speaking up was “why don’t you shut up, I just hope this is all that they take away”.
I would appear that whenever issues become complex or challenging you get the same result with adults as you get with children. Why? Just because issues may appear to be a small matter to adults it doesn't mean it isn’t “big” to children. They don’t have the same concerns as adults. Being accepted by their peers is extremely important to children, especially teenage children. To their perspective, it has the same level of importance as major issues do for adults. It is a matter of perception, and once we realize this it is easy to realize why so many adults make so many decisions to go along with programs and issues that are clearly detrimental to their own interests. We use the term “peer pressure”, but in reality it isn’t a peer pressure problem. It is a herding problem. The innate desire to go along to get along. The need to be part of the herd. The size of the issue is a matter of perspective and fear of rejection, fear of being ridiculed, fear of job loss and fear of isolation cause people to go along to get along. Coupling these fears with a lack of knowledge and proper understanding of important issues absolutely assures the 93% rule. Is 93% the actual percentage for adult decision-making? Once again, I have no idea, but the rule certainly applies as a principle because the actual percentage is immaterial when that percentage is still very large.
Pesticide use is one such issue. We have pest controllers, entomologists, trainers, consultants, university researchers and even owners and their technicians working to promote IPM and other foolish programs that will ultimately destroy the pesticide application industries and there is neither outcry nor any contrary commentary from any of the information deliverers or “leaders” of our industry. In fact the leaders of our industry are promoting these green concepts.
• Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of promoting IPM or so-called “green” pest control is destructive to our industry?
• Does no one see that calling pest control something other than pest control implies that what we have been doing is wrong and that the environmentalists have been right all along?
• Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of supporting the Montreal Protocol and eliminating the use of methyl bromide is counter -productive to our industry and mankind?
• Is it possible that no one sees that the fruitage of the environmental movement has been the unnecessary death of millions along with wretched living conditions and sickness for millions more?
• Is it possible that no one sees the devastation that has ensued in the third world as a result of promulgating environmentalist programs?
• Is it possible that no one sees that most of what the environmental movement has promoted has been based on fear mongering and lies? At the very least lies of omission?
• Is it possible that no one sees that the EPA is not a neutral government agency and at its very beginning was willing to make decisions that have been disastrous to mankind without any scientific basis what so ever? One could even say fraudulent science!
• Is it possible that no one sees that there is no scientific basis for the promotion of any of these policies?
• Does no one see that these policies are detrimental to humanity?
Either we are making uninformed decisions or we are guilty of the 93% rule. Going along to get along! The appeasement mentality of Neville Chamberlain was in reality the 93% rule.
"It has now become the duty of the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries to obediently ignore obvious and provable realities. Inculcated deep within the collective psyche of the pest control industry we have now come to believe every bit of the horse pucky so-called experts and consultants and university researchers heap upon us.”
“We are required to stand up for things which are unproven or unprovable. To support things that are not true, while refuting or rejecting those things which are true! We must proclaim our unwavering resolve to support IPM or whatever the latest “green” philosophical flavor of the day is. We must resolve to support the idea that pesticides cause a whole host of maladies and are destroying the environment. We must accept the fairy tales of people like the Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson and her acolytes (including many in our industry) and call it science.” The only thing left is to hallow that which is unholy! This is what green means.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
###
Monday, March 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Rising Up or Laying Down
By Rich Kozlovich
Recently at RISE’s annual Industry Grassroots Breakfast Karen Reardon, director of communications and grassroots, announced that RISE was going to attempt to increase its “army of industry advocates” by 600, increasing the membership to 1000 by 2009.
To work to develop a grassroots movement nationwide in support of the nation’s pesticide applicators is a work to be applauded. However, I find it most distressing when someone in a position of responsibility, such as RISE President, Mr. Allen James, states that “We’re being left behind in the green sustainability movement,” “In fact, we’re being looked at as the demon in this one.”
What does “green sustainability” mean? This desire to jump on the “phrases without any possible hope of definition” bandwagon is becoming pandemic in the pesticide application industries. No one can define “green”. Actually everyone can define “green”, because it is unendingly definable depending on your personal philosophy. Remember “organic” when it first was touted. It meant no pesticides then. Now they have a list of pesticides….oops…..now the meaning changed.
“Sustainability” is another nonsense term that is thrown around because it also can mean anything you want it to mean. The important thing is that neither one can be defined scientifically in such a manner that those who tout it will agree to. That is why these terms are being used. Because they sound great and mean nothing, but can be made to mean whatever the activists wish it to mean.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) defines sustainability “as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They reasoned that “We thus realized that we, too, were advocates of true sustainable development – that is, our mission in the developing world is to encourage and assist people and their governments to take the steps necessary to transform their stagnant, dependent societies into forward-looking, prosperous communities so that they will have the resources at hand to address environmental and human health concerns over the long term.”
Sounds good to me; but what if the activists decide that “sustainable” really means that prosperous communities are the problem and not the answer? Furthermore, what if they decide that all we have to do to be “sustainable” is to return to nature and “live in handmade huts without paved streets, running water, flush toilets, or even electricity” in order for all future generations to meet their needs? Do we then adopt another level of appeasement? This is what they support worldwide! In every undeveloped area of the world where their policies have been adopted or hold sway, dystopia has prevailed.
If we abandon that which is based on facts and adopt some sort of “green sustainability” program it implies that everything we have done in the past has been wrong, but now we have come to enlightenment and agree with the activists. Do we really believe that?
To paraphrase Col. John Boyd, "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go. If you go one way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club, you will lauded and applauded and you will become prominent. Or you can go the other way and you can do something — something for your friends and your industry and yourself. If you decide to do something, you will not be lauded or applauded, you will not get positions of prominence and you will not be a favorite of those who are prominent. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"
As for being “the demon in this one”; if standing up for science, facts, and truth demonizes our industries, then so be it. Winston Churchill once observed that “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. I for one will not become one that chooses to feed my friends to the crocodiles, nor do I willing choose to be fed to them myself. Those who choose to do rather than to be, will stand with me.
Recently at RISE’s annual Industry Grassroots Breakfast Karen Reardon, director of communications and grassroots, announced that RISE was going to attempt to increase its “army of industry advocates” by 600, increasing the membership to 1000 by 2009.
To work to develop a grassroots movement nationwide in support of the nation’s pesticide applicators is a work to be applauded. However, I find it most distressing when someone in a position of responsibility, such as RISE President, Mr. Allen James, states that “We’re being left behind in the green sustainability movement,” “In fact, we’re being looked at as the demon in this one.”
What does “green sustainability” mean? This desire to jump on the “phrases without any possible hope of definition” bandwagon is becoming pandemic in the pesticide application industries. No one can define “green”. Actually everyone can define “green”, because it is unendingly definable depending on your personal philosophy. Remember “organic” when it first was touted. It meant no pesticides then. Now they have a list of pesticides….oops…..now the meaning changed.
“Sustainability” is another nonsense term that is thrown around because it also can mean anything you want it to mean. The important thing is that neither one can be defined scientifically in such a manner that those who tout it will agree to. That is why these terms are being used. Because they sound great and mean nothing, but can be made to mean whatever the activists wish it to mean.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) defines sustainability “as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They reasoned that “We thus realized that we, too, were advocates of true sustainable development – that is, our mission in the developing world is to encourage and assist people and their governments to take the steps necessary to transform their stagnant, dependent societies into forward-looking, prosperous communities so that they will have the resources at hand to address environmental and human health concerns over the long term.”
Sounds good to me; but what if the activists decide that “sustainable” really means that prosperous communities are the problem and not the answer? Furthermore, what if they decide that all we have to do to be “sustainable” is to return to nature and “live in handmade huts without paved streets, running water, flush toilets, or even electricity” in order for all future generations to meet their needs? Do we then adopt another level of appeasement? This is what they support worldwide! In every undeveloped area of the world where their policies have been adopted or hold sway, dystopia has prevailed.
If we abandon that which is based on facts and adopt some sort of “green sustainability” program it implies that everything we have done in the past has been wrong, but now we have come to enlightenment and agree with the activists. Do we really believe that?
To paraphrase Col. John Boyd, "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go. If you go one way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club, you will lauded and applauded and you will become prominent. Or you can go the other way and you can do something — something for your friends and your industry and yourself. If you decide to do something, you will not be lauded or applauded, you will not get positions of prominence and you will not be a favorite of those who are prominent. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"
As for being “the demon in this one”; if standing up for science, facts, and truth demonizes our industries, then so be it. Winston Churchill once observed that “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. I for one will not become one that chooses to feed my friends to the crocodiles, nor do I willing choose to be fed to them myself. Those who choose to do rather than to be, will stand with me.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Appeals to Authority
I would like to thank DR. JOHN J. RAY (M.A.; Ph.D.) of Brisbane, Australia for extending his permission to me to reprint this article. RK
By John Ray
It is the nature of intellectuals to think that they know better than anyone else. So they rarely defend the status quo. They mostly want to change it in some way that would suit themselves -- mostly to get the money away from those dumb capitalists and channel it in a direction that will be better for intellectuals. In short, intellectuals usually lean Left to at least some degree. Conservatives can take the status quo or leave it, depending on what the particular status quo happens to be. But a loathing of the status quo is intrinsic to Leftism -- so much so that they may often oppose a status quo that they themselves have been instrumental in creating -- with the now-common Green/Left opposition to wind farms (a shout-out to Ted Kennedy here) being one rather amusing example.
One outcome of all that it that Leftists generally find much comfort in the outpourings of intellectuals -- with G.W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx being early players in that field. So an appeal to authority often suits Leftists. They say, in effect: "All these wise men say we need to change the way we do things so that must be right." The most notable tendency of that today is of course the constant Greenie claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the human origin of the slight degree of global warming observed in the late 20th century (but which has been conspicuously absent since 1998). The Greenies luxuriate in having so many authorities on their side and they do their best to discredit the many experts who reject the Warmist view.
Sadly, of course, authorities can often be wrong. Even the smartest of intellectuals can make big mistakes when speaking outside their own field of expertise. Albert Einstein had clearly Marxist views on the economy, for instance. You can read his now mostly archaic thoughts on the matter in the old Marxist publication Monthly Review.
And the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, admired Communism so much that he actually emigrated to Russia. He lasted three weeks there and came back with distinctly modified views. Albert at least was wise enough not to put his money where his mouth was.
And experts can even go wrong when speaking WITHIN their field of expertise. Almost all of my academic career was devoted to exposing the flaws in the Leftist theories conventional among political psychologists. I was repeatedly able to show that the reigning consensus was contradicted by the facts. I don't believe I changed anybody's views, however. Ideology is not easily knocked off its perch by mere facts. But for anybody willing to look, I think I was able to show very clearly that the consensus within my own field of expertise was just plain wrong. You can see therefore why I regard ALL appeals to authority as very third-rate thinking -- as a rather pathetic substitute for looking at the actual evidence.
Given that the Green/Left have so conspicuously hitched their wagon to appeals to authority, however, it does on occasion become necessary to reply in kind. If a Leftist says: "All the experts say... " one needs to reply: "But THESE experts deny ..." if one is to have any hope of making a persuasive case. In other words, although appeals to authority have little objective merit, they do have considerable persuasive power for many people and one has to recognize that and fight back by questioning the authority concerned -- and an easy way to do that is to quote OTHER authorities with different opinions. And I do that often on my Greenie Watch blog.
It is also because of the Leftist authority-orientation (an orientation which makes it all the more amusing that Leftist psychologists constantly brand conservatives as "authoritarian") that I occasionally make mention of my academic background and the fields wherein I can speak with some authority. I would much rather discuss ANY issue on the basis of the facts but if a Leftist insists on personalized arguments in a field where I happen to be an authority, then I feel that I might as well take the easy way out and squash the Leftist using his own hammer. It might just conceivably teach him something about the inherent inconclusiveness of relying on arguments about persons rather than on arguments about the facts. I do however draw the line at claiming any GENERAL authority. Leftist academics very often do implicitly claim that. They get credit for pronouncements made outside their own field of expertise. A linguist like Chomsky, for instance speaks on all sorts of topics outside of his field and Leftists seem to get great comfort from his "authoritative" misrepresentations. They are fools do so. Arguing from an irrelevant authority is in fact what logicians refer to as one of the informal fallacies.
I was rather amused recently, however, when a very skeptical reader asked for my list of academic publications. He evidently thought that I must be the sort of fraud one so often finds on the Left. When he was referred to a full list of the relevant citations, he lost that battle but as a comeback complained that many of my publications were quite short. He seemed to think that you could judge the worth of a research article by its length! I am sure that a lot of academics wish that were true. Writing reams of waffle seems to come very easily to many of them. If there is any criteriality in the length of a research article, I would tend to think that merit is more likely to lie with short articles. If you know what you are talking about and your results are clear, you don't need to ramble on.
I certainly do strive for succinctness in all that I write. People are more likely to read and understand what one has to say that way. But there are of course some topics that NEED to be discussed at great length -- histories and literature reviews, for instance -- and for my sins I do sometimes write at length in those areas.
With my academic background I suppose I could be said to be an intellectual but I sedulously avoid that label. Intellectuals generally seem to me to be a rather miserable bunch who are puffed up with oversimplified theories and who are prone to parasitizing others. By contrast I have always been happy with my lot in life. I have the gift of contentment and "just the facts" will do me fine. And when I do splash out big with money (usually by giving it away. My own needs have always been small), I do it with money honestly earned in business -- not with money ripped off the taxpayer under some pretext. But being someone who has been successful in business as well as in academe does make me an odd bod, I guess.
By John Ray
It is the nature of intellectuals to think that they know better than anyone else. So they rarely defend the status quo. They mostly want to change it in some way that would suit themselves -- mostly to get the money away from those dumb capitalists and channel it in a direction that will be better for intellectuals. In short, intellectuals usually lean Left to at least some degree. Conservatives can take the status quo or leave it, depending on what the particular status quo happens to be. But a loathing of the status quo is intrinsic to Leftism -- so much so that they may often oppose a status quo that they themselves have been instrumental in creating -- with the now-common Green/Left opposition to wind farms (a shout-out to Ted Kennedy here) being one rather amusing example.
One outcome of all that it that Leftists generally find much comfort in the outpourings of intellectuals -- with G.W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx being early players in that field. So an appeal to authority often suits Leftists. They say, in effect: "All these wise men say we need to change the way we do things so that must be right." The most notable tendency of that today is of course the constant Greenie claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the human origin of the slight degree of global warming observed in the late 20th century (but which has been conspicuously absent since 1998). The Greenies luxuriate in having so many authorities on their side and they do their best to discredit the many experts who reject the Warmist view.
Sadly, of course, authorities can often be wrong. Even the smartest of intellectuals can make big mistakes when speaking outside their own field of expertise. Albert Einstein had clearly Marxist views on the economy, for instance. You can read his now mostly archaic thoughts on the matter in the old Marxist publication Monthly Review.
And the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, admired Communism so much that he actually emigrated to Russia. He lasted three weeks there and came back with distinctly modified views. Albert at least was wise enough not to put his money where his mouth was.
And experts can even go wrong when speaking WITHIN their field of expertise. Almost all of my academic career was devoted to exposing the flaws in the Leftist theories conventional among political psychologists. I was repeatedly able to show that the reigning consensus was contradicted by the facts. I don't believe I changed anybody's views, however. Ideology is not easily knocked off its perch by mere facts. But for anybody willing to look, I think I was able to show very clearly that the consensus within my own field of expertise was just plain wrong. You can see therefore why I regard ALL appeals to authority as very third-rate thinking -- as a rather pathetic substitute for looking at the actual evidence.
Given that the Green/Left have so conspicuously hitched their wagon to appeals to authority, however, it does on occasion become necessary to reply in kind. If a Leftist says: "All the experts say... " one needs to reply: "But THESE experts deny ..." if one is to have any hope of making a persuasive case. In other words, although appeals to authority have little objective merit, they do have considerable persuasive power for many people and one has to recognize that and fight back by questioning the authority concerned -- and an easy way to do that is to quote OTHER authorities with different opinions. And I do that often on my Greenie Watch blog.
It is also because of the Leftist authority-orientation (an orientation which makes it all the more amusing that Leftist psychologists constantly brand conservatives as "authoritarian") that I occasionally make mention of my academic background and the fields wherein I can speak with some authority. I would much rather discuss ANY issue on the basis of the facts but if a Leftist insists on personalized arguments in a field where I happen to be an authority, then I feel that I might as well take the easy way out and squash the Leftist using his own hammer. It might just conceivably teach him something about the inherent inconclusiveness of relying on arguments about persons rather than on arguments about the facts. I do however draw the line at claiming any GENERAL authority. Leftist academics very often do implicitly claim that. They get credit for pronouncements made outside their own field of expertise. A linguist like Chomsky, for instance speaks on all sorts of topics outside of his field and Leftists seem to get great comfort from his "authoritative" misrepresentations. They are fools do so. Arguing from an irrelevant authority is in fact what logicians refer to as one of the informal fallacies.
I was rather amused recently, however, when a very skeptical reader asked for my list of academic publications. He evidently thought that I must be the sort of fraud one so often finds on the Left. When he was referred to a full list of the relevant citations, he lost that battle but as a comeback complained that many of my publications were quite short. He seemed to think that you could judge the worth of a research article by its length! I am sure that a lot of academics wish that were true. Writing reams of waffle seems to come very easily to many of them. If there is any criteriality in the length of a research article, I would tend to think that merit is more likely to lie with short articles. If you know what you are talking about and your results are clear, you don't need to ramble on.
I certainly do strive for succinctness in all that I write. People are more likely to read and understand what one has to say that way. But there are of course some topics that NEED to be discussed at great length -- histories and literature reviews, for instance -- and for my sins I do sometimes write at length in those areas.
With my academic background I suppose I could be said to be an intellectual but I sedulously avoid that label. Intellectuals generally seem to me to be a rather miserable bunch who are puffed up with oversimplified theories and who are prone to parasitizing others. By contrast I have always been happy with my lot in life. I have the gift of contentment and "just the facts" will do me fine. And when I do splash out big with money (usually by giving it away. My own needs have always been small), I do it with money honestly earned in business -- not with money ripped off the taxpayer under some pretext. But being someone who has been successful in business as well as in academe does make me an odd bod, I guess.
Friday, December 14, 2007
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
By Rich Kozlovich
Mike Potter once said that the greatest challenge of the 21st century for the pest control industry will be the control of bedbugs. While controlling bedbugs may be our greatest pest control challenge, the real challenge for the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries will be to define what it means to be “green”.
The people in pest control have a rational concern for the environment. We are trained to do good things for people while not harming the environment. Furthermore we actually believe that we do good things for people while not harming the environment, and we do. We believe that we are part of that thin gray line that is the first line of defense in the war for public health, and we are. We are the “hunters” that keep the tribe healthy. However, being concerned about the environment along with good health and being green are two entirely different things.
I firmly believe that in order to understand any issue you must understand the history of that issue. Therefore, In order to determine what it means to be green we need to see what those who profess to be green are for and what they are against. There are a host of issues that could be discussed, but for the sake of space let’s take just two; genetically modified foods and pesticides.
Genetically modified foods are anathema to those who are green. They consistently make all sorts of claims which have no basis in science. Some of these claims being outright lies about the effect of genetically modified organism’s on the environment and the impact on people’s health.
Vitamin A is a nutrient that is lacking in the diets of peoples living in Southeast Asia. As a result of intensive research scientists have found a way to add a molecule from a flower that would produce beta-carotene in rice. In turn the body would turn that into vitamin A. It was called by the trade name “Golden Rice” and developed specifically to address this deficiency. A deficiency “which kills at least 6,000 children every day” from malnutrition and “leads to irreversible blindness in 500,000 people each year”. The “green” activists, who claim to be so concerned about human health, especially children’s health, continue to stand against the use of these products. At one point they threw up so many barriers to this product that it was estimated that it would take five years before it could be made available. That means that 2,190,000 children would unnecessarily die and 2,500,000 people would go blind before this product could be available to work its healing properties. This is what it means to be green!
Pesticides are and have always been the great boogeyman of those who are green, especially after Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. In fact, everything that the public believes about DDT is a lie. Carson was a wonderful writer, but she was wrong on almost everything she claimed, including her predictions. Furthermore, in one case she deliberately misrepresented the facts. Her evidence was largely anecdotal and if it had been peer reviewed it never would have been published. It did not appear in a peer reviewed science journal, where scientists could take a long hard look at her “science”. It appeared as excerpted installments in New Yorker magazine and did exactly what it was intended to do; grab a hold of the public’s fears and emotions through scare mongering. The result was the ban on DDT and the death of millions. Yet, that hasn’t stopped those who are green from demanding more and more bans on pesticides. These demands are supported by equally outrageous unscientific statements about cancer, asthma, endocrine disruption and a host of other hypothetical unwarranted fears about pesticides.
We are removing life saving products from the market at a record pace. Although new products become available, they also come under attack. Colony Collapse Disorder impacted the honey bee populations around the world. The first thing that came out of the environmental movement was that this was caused by genetically modified foods. Then neonicotinoids were blamed and one European country even banned (at least temporarily) the use of these products because of these claims, but to no avail. This was then followed by cell phone radiation. Although the overwhelming evidence was that this was a cyclical phenomenon probably caused by disease or fungus, in short it is “natural”. This irrationality is what it means to be green.
We are told that we should view becoming green in pest control as merely a marketing tool. However, when we start doing this, aren’t we in reality telling the public that we need to change what we are doing because what we are currently doing is wrong and what we have been doing it wrong for over sixty years? Are we not in fact saying that the environmental activists have been right all along and we may have been responsible for the death or infirmity of untold thousands because of our use of pesticides? Is this not a tacit approval of the greens and their accusations against us? Do we really believe that? This is what it means to be green.
Alan Caruba, of the National Anxiety Center, made this observation. Greens always have and always will oppose anything that benefits human beings. They will save the whales, the wolves and the grizzly bears.....They will seek to ban every pesticide and herbicide needed to protect against disease and the growing of crops, but the one thing they will NOT do is anything that will improve and protect the lives of human beings!”
We have discussed what greens are against; let us look at what they are for. Actually that isn’t as easy as it would seem. First, we have to understand that the environmental movement isn’t monolithic. When an activist group takes a stand that some members disagree with, they simply form another activist group with those who share their views and stand against those positions taken by other activists groups. This is why the greens are really good at finding fault while being very poor at finding solutions. They simply can’t find any solutions that they all agree on. There is however four areas in which they are in almost total harmony. First; there are too many people in the world. Second; the world’s wealth and resources need to be redistributed equitably, with them as the final arbiters as to how this is to be done. Third; we all need to return to nature and become one with the biosphere. Fourth; all chemicals are evil.
In April of 2007 Cheetah the chimpanzee of Tarzan movies fame turned 75. How long do you think he would have lasted if he had been living “back to nature”? How many people would survive one year by going “back to nature”? No modern conveniences, no electricity, no running water, no supermarkets, no public sanitation, no mechanized transportation, no central heating or air conditioning and no pesticides, no vaccinations and only organically grown foods. Not very many I would guess. Yet we keep hearing how people “have” to return to nature.
Earth First founder Dave Foreman was overheard saying, "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere." That is what it means to be green.
In the real world how long do you think “Jane” would have lasted in a real jungle in real life? Millions have contracted malaria and died in that area of the world and yet Tarzan and Jane never seemed to get sick? Why? Because it was a fantasy.
Hollywood presented their fictional life as happy and healthy, even healthier than those living in the modern world. In fact, the only real problems they ever encountered were when people from the modern world intruded on them. Occasionally one of these outsiders would be bitten by a poisonous spider or come down with some other malady, but never fear, they had a secret herbal “jungle” remedy, giving the impression that nothing else was needed. Jane would send Tarzan swinging out into the jungle to get some “natural” miracle cure. After returning Jane would smugly and confidently pronounce how there was nothing to worry about as they had their own pharmacopeia. The inference was obvious. Naturally occurring products were better than anything produced by man and we clearly needed to become one with nature. Perhaps this was the real beginning of the modern environmental movement. I wonder; is it possible that Rachel Carson liked the Tarzan movies? Makes sense, after all, Hollywood fiction is usually very well written smoke, mirrors, fantasy and make believe history! Just like Silent Spring.
In the real world it is quite different. Paul Dreissen points out that “Two billion people rarely or never have electricity – for lights, refrigeration and cooking, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, offices, shops and factories. Women and children are plagued with lung infections caused by wood and dung fires, and by acute intestinal diseases caused by tainted water and spoiled food. Up to ten million die from these causes every year.” The fact of the matter is that where ever green policies have been strictly adhered to dystopia has followed. We must ask ourselves; if the green activists are so concerned about the health of those in the developed world, why do they show such distain for the health and lives of those living in the less developed parts of the world?
What does it mean to be Green? To be green is to be irrational and misanthropic.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Mike Potter once said that the greatest challenge of the 21st century for the pest control industry will be the control of bedbugs. While controlling bedbugs may be our greatest pest control challenge, the real challenge for the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries will be to define what it means to be “green”.
The people in pest control have a rational concern for the environment. We are trained to do good things for people while not harming the environment. Furthermore we actually believe that we do good things for people while not harming the environment, and we do. We believe that we are part of that thin gray line that is the first line of defense in the war for public health, and we are. We are the “hunters” that keep the tribe healthy. However, being concerned about the environment along with good health and being green are two entirely different things.
I firmly believe that in order to understand any issue you must understand the history of that issue. Therefore, In order to determine what it means to be green we need to see what those who profess to be green are for and what they are against. There are a host of issues that could be discussed, but for the sake of space let’s take just two; genetically modified foods and pesticides.
Genetically modified foods are anathema to those who are green. They consistently make all sorts of claims which have no basis in science. Some of these claims being outright lies about the effect of genetically modified organism’s on the environment and the impact on people’s health.
Vitamin A is a nutrient that is lacking in the diets of peoples living in Southeast Asia. As a result of intensive research scientists have found a way to add a molecule from a flower that would produce beta-carotene in rice. In turn the body would turn that into vitamin A. It was called by the trade name “Golden Rice” and developed specifically to address this deficiency. A deficiency “which kills at least 6,000 children every day” from malnutrition and “leads to irreversible blindness in 500,000 people each year”. The “green” activists, who claim to be so concerned about human health, especially children’s health, continue to stand against the use of these products. At one point they threw up so many barriers to this product that it was estimated that it would take five years before it could be made available. That means that 2,190,000 children would unnecessarily die and 2,500,000 people would go blind before this product could be available to work its healing properties. This is what it means to be green!
Pesticides are and have always been the great boogeyman of those who are green, especially after Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. In fact, everything that the public believes about DDT is a lie. Carson was a wonderful writer, but she was wrong on almost everything she claimed, including her predictions. Furthermore, in one case she deliberately misrepresented the facts. Her evidence was largely anecdotal and if it had been peer reviewed it never would have been published. It did not appear in a peer reviewed science journal, where scientists could take a long hard look at her “science”. It appeared as excerpted installments in New Yorker magazine and did exactly what it was intended to do; grab a hold of the public’s fears and emotions through scare mongering. The result was the ban on DDT and the death of millions. Yet, that hasn’t stopped those who are green from demanding more and more bans on pesticides. These demands are supported by equally outrageous unscientific statements about cancer, asthma, endocrine disruption and a host of other hypothetical unwarranted fears about pesticides.
We are removing life saving products from the market at a record pace. Although new products become available, they also come under attack. Colony Collapse Disorder impacted the honey bee populations around the world. The first thing that came out of the environmental movement was that this was caused by genetically modified foods. Then neonicotinoids were blamed and one European country even banned (at least temporarily) the use of these products because of these claims, but to no avail. This was then followed by cell phone radiation. Although the overwhelming evidence was that this was a cyclical phenomenon probably caused by disease or fungus, in short it is “natural”. This irrationality is what it means to be green.
We are told that we should view becoming green in pest control as merely a marketing tool. However, when we start doing this, aren’t we in reality telling the public that we need to change what we are doing because what we are currently doing is wrong and what we have been doing it wrong for over sixty years? Are we not in fact saying that the environmental activists have been right all along and we may have been responsible for the death or infirmity of untold thousands because of our use of pesticides? Is this not a tacit approval of the greens and their accusations against us? Do we really believe that? This is what it means to be green.
Alan Caruba, of the National Anxiety Center, made this observation. Greens always have and always will oppose anything that benefits human beings. They will save the whales, the wolves and the grizzly bears.....They will seek to ban every pesticide and herbicide needed to protect against disease and the growing of crops, but the one thing they will NOT do is anything that will improve and protect the lives of human beings!”
We have discussed what greens are against; let us look at what they are for. Actually that isn’t as easy as it would seem. First, we have to understand that the environmental movement isn’t monolithic. When an activist group takes a stand that some members disagree with, they simply form another activist group with those who share their views and stand against those positions taken by other activists groups. This is why the greens are really good at finding fault while being very poor at finding solutions. They simply can’t find any solutions that they all agree on. There is however four areas in which they are in almost total harmony. First; there are too many people in the world. Second; the world’s wealth and resources need to be redistributed equitably, with them as the final arbiters as to how this is to be done. Third; we all need to return to nature and become one with the biosphere. Fourth; all chemicals are evil.
In April of 2007 Cheetah the chimpanzee of Tarzan movies fame turned 75. How long do you think he would have lasted if he had been living “back to nature”? How many people would survive one year by going “back to nature”? No modern conveniences, no electricity, no running water, no supermarkets, no public sanitation, no mechanized transportation, no central heating or air conditioning and no pesticides, no vaccinations and only organically grown foods. Not very many I would guess. Yet we keep hearing how people “have” to return to nature.
Earth First founder Dave Foreman was overheard saying, "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere." That is what it means to be green.
In the real world how long do you think “Jane” would have lasted in a real jungle in real life? Millions have contracted malaria and died in that area of the world and yet Tarzan and Jane never seemed to get sick? Why? Because it was a fantasy.
Hollywood presented their fictional life as happy and healthy, even healthier than those living in the modern world. In fact, the only real problems they ever encountered were when people from the modern world intruded on them. Occasionally one of these outsiders would be bitten by a poisonous spider or come down with some other malady, but never fear, they had a secret herbal “jungle” remedy, giving the impression that nothing else was needed. Jane would send Tarzan swinging out into the jungle to get some “natural” miracle cure. After returning Jane would smugly and confidently pronounce how there was nothing to worry about as they had their own pharmacopeia. The inference was obvious. Naturally occurring products were better than anything produced by man and we clearly needed to become one with nature. Perhaps this was the real beginning of the modern environmental movement. I wonder; is it possible that Rachel Carson liked the Tarzan movies? Makes sense, after all, Hollywood fiction is usually very well written smoke, mirrors, fantasy and make believe history! Just like Silent Spring.
In the real world it is quite different. Paul Dreissen points out that “Two billion people rarely or never have electricity – for lights, refrigeration and cooking, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, offices, shops and factories. Women and children are plagued with lung infections caused by wood and dung fires, and by acute intestinal diseases caused by tainted water and spoiled food. Up to ten million die from these causes every year.” The fact of the matter is that where ever green policies have been strictly adhered to dystopia has followed. We must ask ourselves; if the green activists are so concerned about the health of those in the developed world, why do they show such distain for the health and lives of those living in the less developed parts of the world?
What does it mean to be Green? To be green is to be irrational and misanthropic.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Friday, December 7, 2007
ECO-ANTI
ANTI-HUMAN, ANTI-HUMAN LIFE QUALITY ADVANCE ILLOGIC THEORY/ACTIONS
By Dave Dietz: Submitted to Green Notes on 11/31/07
In the early 19th Century (1811, to be exact), Luddites (modern day eco extremists) tried to stop life progress by stopping labor and life saving change. Misguided Luddites tried to stop, to turn back the change now known as the Industrial Revolution. They failed and human lives and life quality advanced ...But today, again we face a popularly perceived movement that is, in fact, an anti-human, anti-human life quality advance protest simply clothed in a popular, important symbol of our time. In fact, honest headlines today should truthfully read:
ECO EXTREMISTS TRYING TO KILL MILLIONS OF HUMANS
... Eco leaders/extremist supporters unmasked ...And it's not a pretty picture!!
Certain environmental radicals will scream at and try to deny this truth. That's because the facts do and will honestly expose them as the human haters they are. Will they own up to this truth? Of course not. To do so would reveal not only their too true character but their phony motivations. So what are these motivations? They see humans as the antithesis of their imaginary, right place earth. They not only see any/all human life effort made or any/every human act or action taken to induce change for human life quality improvement as inimical, they actually attempt to delay, halt or reverse any such effort that is attempted.
As bad, the eco radicals actually do real harm to the environment. How are these anti-everything attitudes manifested?
Read on ...
Eco radicals have wrapped their anti-human modus operandi in layers of logical sounding statements which are, in reality, oxymoron's designed to hide the actual motivations, intentions and regulatory-practical human hindrances underhandedly undertaken by these sheep-clad carnivores.
Need an example?
Try the so-called "Precautionary Principle." The "precautionary principle" was developed at a conference of environmentalists and like-minded academics at the Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, in January, 1998. According to the Wingspread Declaration:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not established scientifically."
This principle captures much of the skepticism many environmentalists feel and have about the value and promise of technology. Environmentalists and like-minded skeptics see only technology's potential to cause a perceived, as against real, harm and do not, at all, balance a technology's actual benefits against this perception of harm or doom, be it imaginary or even possible. This extreme negativism, this rejection of change no matter the potential benefits of the change innovated, is a verbose restatement of Mother's child safety admonition of, "It's better to be safe than sorry." In other words, never risk making any change, no matter the potential benefits of such change. But, is such risk denial safe for human health or environment quality advance?
Perhaps not.
A critical flaw in the "safety first at any price" enviro argument is that obvious costs of such a policy are either ignored or not counted. The argumentative flaw is easy to see and simple to understand. It is that while the imagined but misperceived human health and environment harm risks might be reduced from doing nothing, by doing nothing real health and environment harms these policy changes might alleviate or correct continue and may worsen. Clearly, in other words, the imagined but unproven harms the eco radical critics of change fear are, to them, better than the reality (even if harmful or not as good as is possible) now and is also better than the life quality improvement that can be expected to be experienced from the change that is, by whatever method, purposefully delayed or denied. In short, unfounded fear and negative perception wins out over intended, needed change and truth.
Take the current controversy surrounding GM (Genetically Modified) foods.
GM, or derisively called "franken," foods are popularly imagined by critics to harmfully threaten natural food stuffs' genetic codes, potentially harm human nutrition and digestion and adversely affect all things from the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
But, again, this perception is belied by truth. And the truth does matter. As regards GM food development and widening use, in fact no human or environment ill effects or undue human health or environment harm have resulted from the development and increasing use of GM foods and materials. GM foods actually promise reductions in global hunger and malnutrition and a less chemical-dependant agriculture. Increased use of GM foods and materials further promises less land and water used for an ever better fed world, more targeted use of fewer pesticides, improved soil nutrition bases, increased distribution of essential foods which can be longer, more healthily stored and the aforementioned improved planetary bio-diversity.
In sum, the actual, proven benefits to human life and health and environment improvement are truly enormous, diversified and ubiquitous. Imagined perceptions of harm are completely belied the now well and conclusively proven real world truth/reality.
GM foods example conclusion statement/sentiment.
Why the radical eco actions are human harmful to humans and the environment. And, as you read the following, keep just one fact in mind. Agriculture today needs 65% of all fresh water with-drawls and consumes 80% of all fresh water used.
"By comparison with conventional crops, GM crops would, in fact, increase the quantity and nutritional quality of food supplies. Therefore, such crops would improve public health by reducing mortality and morbidity rates worldwide. In addition, cultivation of GM, rather than conventional, crops would, by increasing productivity, reduce the amount of land and water that would otherwise have to be diverted to humankind's needs. GM crops would also reduce the environmental damage from soil erosion and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Thus, GM crops would be more protective of habitat, biological diversity, water quality, and carbon stores and sinks than would conventional agriculture.
"Hence, a ban on GM crops--whether accomplished directly through the invocation of the precautionary principle or indirectly through application(s) of the Bio-safety Protocol--is likely to aggravate threats to bio-diversity and further increase the already considerable hurdles facing in situ conservation. Therefore, a ban would be counterproductive and contravene the spirit and letter of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The precautionary principle - properly applied, with a more comprehensive consideration of the public health and environmental consequences of a ban - argues instead for a sustained effort to research, develop and commercialize GM crops, provided reasonable caution is exercised during testing and commercialization of the crops.
"In this context, a "reasonable" precaution is one in which public health benefits are not negated by the harm incurred due to reductions (or delays) in enhancing the quantity or quality of food. The public health costs of any reductions (or delays), which would make food more costly and reduce broader access to higher quality food at least for a period, would be disproportionately borne by the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Also, the environmental gains flowing from a "reasonable" precaution should more than offset the environmental gains that would otherwise be obtained." (Indur M. Goklany, The Promise and Peril of Bioengineered Crops, The Improving State of the World 286-7)
IT'S TIME TO STOP THE NEEDLESS, SENSELESS KILLING OF INNOCENT HUMANS. IT'S TIME FOR PERCEPTION TO BE TRUTH ... FOR OUR AND THE ENIRONMENT''S HEALTH.
Point - The eco-radicals were very deliberately loosey-goosey when they drafted their "precautionary principle" just so they could logically and within the "principle's" misguided intent always object to any and every proposed life change no matter the level/extent of the change's likely benefits to/for humans. Their "principle" is far worse than the Luddites sadly mistaken opposition to mechanized progress because it is deliberately, knowingly anti-human and anti-human life quality advance.
Another point.
At least when Congress asked FIFRA users to prove a negative, which we know is an impossibility, they intended a balancing act. Congress intended a risk-benefit analysis under FIFRA to thus permit the "safe" (a relative, ever subject to change word/term) pursuit of benefits with "reasonable," and in their judgment acceptable risk.
In establishing the "precautionary principle" the eco-extremists deliberately chose to eliminate any kind of balance or attempt to judge risk v. benefit. They chose, instead, to argue that any risk/harm, be it real or simply perceived or "dreamed up," was sufficient to delay or deny any human lifestyle change/advance. They will tolerate no human lifestyle change, no matter the risks it eliminates or the benefits it promises.
Each approach is argumentative and subject to endless interpretation. Congress, however, recognizes the potential human benefits of change. The eco-extremists not only try, with a perverse but well sounding logic, to delay/deny any/all change, they deliberately work to harm humans for their own satisfaction.
Mr. Dietz has a law degree from Willamette University and was the Executive Director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter (OFS) from its inception in 1980 until 1987.
By Dave Dietz: Submitted to Green Notes on 11/31/07
In the early 19th Century (1811, to be exact), Luddites (modern day eco extremists) tried to stop life progress by stopping labor and life saving change. Misguided Luddites tried to stop, to turn back the change now known as the Industrial Revolution. They failed and human lives and life quality advanced ...But today, again we face a popularly perceived movement that is, in fact, an anti-human, anti-human life quality advance protest simply clothed in a popular, important symbol of our time. In fact, honest headlines today should truthfully read:
ECO EXTREMISTS TRYING TO KILL MILLIONS OF HUMANS
... Eco leaders/extremist supporters unmasked ...And it's not a pretty picture!!
Certain environmental radicals will scream at and try to deny this truth. That's because the facts do and will honestly expose them as the human haters they are. Will they own up to this truth? Of course not. To do so would reveal not only their too true character but their phony motivations. So what are these motivations? They see humans as the antithesis of their imaginary, right place earth. They not only see any/all human life effort made or any/every human act or action taken to induce change for human life quality improvement as inimical, they actually attempt to delay, halt or reverse any such effort that is attempted.
As bad, the eco radicals actually do real harm to the environment. How are these anti-everything attitudes manifested?
Read on ...
Eco radicals have wrapped their anti-human modus operandi in layers of logical sounding statements which are, in reality, oxymoron's designed to hide the actual motivations, intentions and regulatory-practical human hindrances underhandedly undertaken by these sheep-clad carnivores.
Need an example?
Try the so-called "Precautionary Principle." The "precautionary principle" was developed at a conference of environmentalists and like-minded academics at the Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, in January, 1998. According to the Wingspread Declaration:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not established scientifically."
This principle captures much of the skepticism many environmentalists feel and have about the value and promise of technology. Environmentalists and like-minded skeptics see only technology's potential to cause a perceived, as against real, harm and do not, at all, balance a technology's actual benefits against this perception of harm or doom, be it imaginary or even possible. This extreme negativism, this rejection of change no matter the potential benefits of the change innovated, is a verbose restatement of Mother's child safety admonition of, "It's better to be safe than sorry." In other words, never risk making any change, no matter the potential benefits of such change. But, is such risk denial safe for human health or environment quality advance?
Perhaps not.
A critical flaw in the "safety first at any price" enviro argument is that obvious costs of such a policy are either ignored or not counted. The argumentative flaw is easy to see and simple to understand. It is that while the imagined but misperceived human health and environment harm risks might be reduced from doing nothing, by doing nothing real health and environment harms these policy changes might alleviate or correct continue and may worsen. Clearly, in other words, the imagined but unproven harms the eco radical critics of change fear are, to them, better than the reality (even if harmful or not as good as is possible) now and is also better than the life quality improvement that can be expected to be experienced from the change that is, by whatever method, purposefully delayed or denied. In short, unfounded fear and negative perception wins out over intended, needed change and truth.
Take the current controversy surrounding GM (Genetically Modified) foods.
GM, or derisively called "franken," foods are popularly imagined by critics to harmfully threaten natural food stuffs' genetic codes, potentially harm human nutrition and digestion and adversely affect all things from the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.
But, again, this perception is belied by truth. And the truth does matter. As regards GM food development and widening use, in fact no human or environment ill effects or undue human health or environment harm have resulted from the development and increasing use of GM foods and materials. GM foods actually promise reductions in global hunger and malnutrition and a less chemical-dependant agriculture. Increased use of GM foods and materials further promises less land and water used for an ever better fed world, more targeted use of fewer pesticides, improved soil nutrition bases, increased distribution of essential foods which can be longer, more healthily stored and the aforementioned improved planetary bio-diversity.
In sum, the actual, proven benefits to human life and health and environment improvement are truly enormous, diversified and ubiquitous. Imagined perceptions of harm are completely belied the now well and conclusively proven real world truth/reality.
GM foods example conclusion statement/sentiment.
Why the radical eco actions are human harmful to humans and the environment. And, as you read the following, keep just one fact in mind. Agriculture today needs 65% of all fresh water with-drawls and consumes 80% of all fresh water used.
"By comparison with conventional crops, GM crops would, in fact, increase the quantity and nutritional quality of food supplies. Therefore, such crops would improve public health by reducing mortality and morbidity rates worldwide. In addition, cultivation of GM, rather than conventional, crops would, by increasing productivity, reduce the amount of land and water that would otherwise have to be diverted to humankind's needs. GM crops would also reduce the environmental damage from soil erosion and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Thus, GM crops would be more protective of habitat, biological diversity, water quality, and carbon stores and sinks than would conventional agriculture.
"Hence, a ban on GM crops--whether accomplished directly through the invocation of the precautionary principle or indirectly through application(s) of the Bio-safety Protocol--is likely to aggravate threats to bio-diversity and further increase the already considerable hurdles facing in situ conservation. Therefore, a ban would be counterproductive and contravene the spirit and letter of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The precautionary principle - properly applied, with a more comprehensive consideration of the public health and environmental consequences of a ban - argues instead for a sustained effort to research, develop and commercialize GM crops, provided reasonable caution is exercised during testing and commercialization of the crops.
"In this context, a "reasonable" precaution is one in which public health benefits are not negated by the harm incurred due to reductions (or delays) in enhancing the quantity or quality of food. The public health costs of any reductions (or delays), which would make food more costly and reduce broader access to higher quality food at least for a period, would be disproportionately borne by the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Also, the environmental gains flowing from a "reasonable" precaution should more than offset the environmental gains that would otherwise be obtained." (Indur M. Goklany, The Promise and Peril of Bioengineered Crops, The Improving State of the World 286-7)
IT'S TIME TO STOP THE NEEDLESS, SENSELESS KILLING OF INNOCENT HUMANS. IT'S TIME FOR PERCEPTION TO BE TRUTH ... FOR OUR AND THE ENIRONMENT''S HEALTH.
Point - The eco-radicals were very deliberately loosey-goosey when they drafted their "precautionary principle" just so they could logically and within the "principle's" misguided intent always object to any and every proposed life change no matter the level/extent of the change's likely benefits to/for humans. Their "principle" is far worse than the Luddites sadly mistaken opposition to mechanized progress because it is deliberately, knowingly anti-human and anti-human life quality advance.
Another point.
At least when Congress asked FIFRA users to prove a negative, which we know is an impossibility, they intended a balancing act. Congress intended a risk-benefit analysis under FIFRA to thus permit the "safe" (a relative, ever subject to change word/term) pursuit of benefits with "reasonable," and in their judgment acceptable risk.
In establishing the "precautionary principle" the eco-extremists deliberately chose to eliminate any kind of balance or attempt to judge risk v. benefit. They chose, instead, to argue that any risk/harm, be it real or simply perceived or "dreamed up," was sufficient to delay or deny any human lifestyle change/advance. They will tolerate no human lifestyle change, no matter the risks it eliminates or the benefits it promises.
Each approach is argumentative and subject to endless interpretation. Congress, however, recognizes the potential human benefits of change. The eco-extremists not only try, with a perverse but well sounding logic, to delay/deny any/all change, they deliberately work to harm humans for their own satisfaction.
Mr. Dietz has a law degree from Willamette University and was the Executive Director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter (OFS) from its inception in 1980 until 1987.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)