HOME | DD

Description
A New World Religion

I'm sure all of you, at least those of you who are somewhere near my age bracket, remember kindergarten pretty well. Kindergarten was the first year I was introduced to one of the greatest atrocities to rational thought that became popularized. I fell for it up until about a year or so ago. Environmentalism. It started out innocently enough. "Wash your Dixie cup so you can use it later," I was told. I remember thinking Ms. Hornbacher was crazy but I still did it.

Washing the cup was the first step I took into becoming a devout follower of a rather flawed religion. Yes, I'm referring to Environmentalism is as religion. Environmentalists do believe in a god: Earth. They believe in worshipping said god: doing our duty to keep Earth safe. They even have their own creed: "It is a privilege to live on Earth; it is a responsibility to take care of it." Environmentalists exploit children, weak of mind and still looking forward to impacting the world immensely, and use them as converted souls to further their cause. If you can't draw the parallels between Environmentalism and other organized religions by now you may as well stop reading.

I followed them. After all, it does seem like one of the most noble and great causes you could cook up. Let's save the world from ourselves. If we do that then our children and grandchildren will be able to live in a prettier, healthier, happier world. It's almost like my current religion: Evo-creationist Deism with a tad of Christianity/Islam mix (add a sprig of rosemary for extra flavor).  Had I then the knowledge I have now I wouldn't have gone this path just yet, though. Experiencing it brings it to life in you: you've been lied to.

Just Make a Plane Instead

And this is the biggest reason why. Recycling renewable resources for the purpose of environmental safety is one of the greatest lies or slips of the religion itself. According to the followers, recycling paper helps cause fewer trees to be cut down which is good because the rainforest is dying and many monkeys of unknown species are dying with the rainforest and that's bad because (breath) we need to preserve all of creation. In reality trees are grown on tree farms, monkeys that we didn't know about don't affect our lives now (just like before, wow!) and recycling paper is only a commercial benefit: lowered paper prices.

Allow me to illustrate. Larry D. Logger cuts and sells trees for a living. The more he sells the more he makes. Unfortunately for Larry, his supply is limited so he can't cut down too many trees or he'll go out of business. If he sells to few he won't make enough revenue. Seeing as his only buyer is a paper company, all of his crop and revenue are hung on the demand of the paper company (Larry's no good at business). If paper is selling well, the paper company will want to make more paper to sell and therefore make more money. Larry's right on the boat with the paper company and he starts cutting and selling like a madman. Of course, Larry likes money as much as everyone else. With his earnings he'll buy saplings to plant, at least two for every one tree cut down. Larry's no good at business but he does know that he has to keep a crop growing in order to stay in business.  Cutting more trees has ended with more trees being planted, therefore more trees being produced. That part of the theory is nixed.

Moving onward, how recycling companies get into the ordeal. Let's say that I decided that I needed more paper. I buy more paper from the store. I use the paper and I recycle it when I'm done. The paper goes to the recycling plant and is then sold back to the store. The paper mill and the logger are not involved initially. But because more paper is available at the store, the paper mill lowers its orders and fewer trees are cut. Fewer trees are planted and the ratio of trees cut to trees planted is smaller (still 1:2 but the number of trees planted is smaller, a bad thing).

Here's the rub, though. Recycling paper means that it goes through fewer companies and is therefore sold fewer times. For those of you who are pro-government, this is bad. Tex revenues from sale and resale diminish and the government suffers from fewer taxes collected. It's good for the consumer, though. The fact that it isn't sold as many times means that the price is going to be lower. Why? Everyone will want to make a profit off of the wood/paper. The logger will sell it at a price so that he can make enough to get saplings and still get a profit. The mill will sell it at a price so that they can buy more logs and still get a profit. The store will try to sell it so that they can buy more paper and still get a profit. Even the recycling company will try to scrounge up a profit. If two of those organization are dropped off the cycle completely the price would drop as well. This is what happens when someone recycles. Unfortunately, recycling is a costly procedure. It would cost maybe 1.5x the amount that the logger or mill would have (separately). Still, that's a lower price. Would you prefer a lower price? Sure! What's the other cost? Fewer trees! Crap.

I’d like to point out that I am not completely against recycling. No, in fact, I’d much rather have people recycle than not. I am, however, against recycling for he purpose of environmental safety. It is a rumor that should be stopped.

The Chrissi Fallacy

Way back when I posted in a forum and dicussed with a girl called Chrissi her beliefs as a vegetarian. In short, she became a vegetarian because she didn’t believe that humans as a whole no longer needed to eat meat. After all, there is plenty of alternative food available for consumption. Another point, made by someone named EB seemed to follow this train of thought: "You know, one serving of meat takes about ten servings of grain to produce." This argument is very sensible but also very limited.

It is true that it takes quite a bit of grain to feed one cow into maturity and then slaughter it for meat. All the grain that went into that one cow could have easily fed many more people. There would be a greater food surplus, prices would drop, and hunger would end. Cows wouldn’t be slaughtered as much, either, because we wouldn’t eat as many. What part of that sounds wrong to you?

For one thing, just because there is a price drop from a surplus does not mean that more people get to eat. Just as many people get food and they get it in larger quantities now. The only difference is the amount they paid for each unit of the food. Although the price of the item has dropped it is still quite hard for a person who is hungry to obtain the item. Why? People who could have afforded it before will snatch it up as the price falls. In reality, it would make much more sense to raise the price of the grain that is being produced than lower it. Now the average consumer will seek lower prices but the poorer person would buy the most easily obtainable package possible. Go ahead and draw the indifference curves, this is true.

There’s another matter, a morally hazardous one, which goes with the issue. Are you more willing to lessen the number of bovine births or create more incentive for potential bovine abuse? If more meat is consumed it is more likely that the breeders will keep their livestock by using inhumane methods (running out of room in your farm therefore cramming the livestock together much too tightly). If less meat is consumed it is more likely that fewer livestock will be bred. This lessens the amount of births in the first place. I choose to cause potential abuse (I don’t have to endure the cost of lost opportunity, just the cost of loss of life. This is assuming that if the livestock were bred that they would be slaughtered and I am not only suffering the loss of the life but the lack of the meat provided).

The Future: Who Really Cares?

Ok, I admit it. I care about the future. My future, at least. I plan on getting rich and having a few children, then moving to a small cottage in Montana. I hope my kids will become as successful as they can be. I can only pray that I’ll never have to retire out of work. Other than that, the future is nothing more than a dream (except maybe World Conquest. That would be nice. Kinda). If we run out of oil supplies within the next generation (and we won’t run out all too soon. If it was going to run out anytime within forecast range why haven’t the oil companies picked up on this and started charging the crap out of the limited resource?) then I guess my kids are going to have a tough time. If we run out of rainforests and many undiscovered species of monkeys die and cannot fulfill their (minor) roles in the ecosystem and my children never get to experience their ugly and frantic tendencies that’s too bad. I don’t care about the little monkeys that we don’t know about. If I don’t know about them and they die would that affect my life too much? Would it affect the lives of my children?

Why should I care about a future in which I do not exist? I will reap no benefits from doing so, not even the benefit of feeling good. I’ll be dead and pleasant emotions are of no use to a cadaver.

Description
A New World Religion

I'm sure all of you, at least those of you who are somewhere near my age bracket, remember kindergarten pretty well. Kindergarten was the first year I was introduced to one of the greatest atrocities to rational thought that became popularized. I fell for it up until about a year or so ago. Environmentalism. It started out innocently enough. "Wash your Dixie cup so you can use it later," I was told. I remember thinking Ms. Hornbacher was crazy but I still did it.

Washing the cup was the first step I took into becoming a devout follower of a rather flawed religion. Yes, I'm referring to Environmentalism is as religion. Environmentalists do believe in a god: Earth. They believe in worshipping said god: doing our duty to keep Earth safe. They even have their own creed: "It is a privilege to live on Earth; it is a responsibility to take care of it." Environmentalists exploit children, weak of mind and still looking forward to impacting the world immensely, and use them as converted souls to further their cause. If you can't draw the parallels between Environmentalism and other organized religions by now you may as well stop reading.

I followed them. After all, it does seem like one of the most noble and great causes you could cook up. Let's save the world from ourselves. If we do that then our children and grandchildren will be able to live in a prettier, healthier, happier world. It's almost like my current religion: Evo-creationist Deism with a tad of Christianity/Islam mix (add a sprig of rosemary for extra flavor).  Had I then the knowledge I have now I wouldn't have gone this path just yet, though. Experiencing it brings it to life in you: you've been lied to.

Just Make a Plane Instead

And this is the biggest reason why. Recycling renewable resources for the purpose of environmental safety is one of the greatest lies or slips of the religion itself. According to the followers, recycling paper helps cause fewer trees to be cut down which is good because the rainforest is dying and many monkeys of unknown species are dying with the rainforest and that's bad because (breath) we need to preserve all of creation. In reality trees are grown on tree farms, monkeys that we didn't know about don't affect our lives now (just like before, wow!) and recycling paper is only a commercial benefit: lowered paper prices.

Allow me to illustrate. Larry D. Logger cuts and sells trees for a living. The more he sells the more he makes. Unfortunately for Larry, his supply is limited so he can't cut down too many trees or he'll go out of business. If he sells to few he won't make enough revenue. Seeing as his only buyer is a paper company, all of his crop and revenue are hung on the demand of the paper company (Larry's no good at business). If paper is selling well, the paper company will want to make more paper to sell and therefore make more money. Larry's right on the boat with the paper company and he starts cutting and selling like a madman. Of course, Larry likes money as much as everyone else. With his earnings he'll buy saplings to plant, at least two for every one tree cut down. Larry's no good at business but he does know that he has to keep a crop growing in order to stay in business.  Cutting more trees has ended with more trees being planted, therefore more trees being produced. That part of the theory is nixed.

Moving onward, how recycling companies get into the ordeal. Let's say that I decided that I needed more paper. I buy more paper from the store. I use the paper and I recycle it when I'm done. The paper goes to the recycling plant and is then sold back to the store. The paper mill and the logger are not involved initially. But because more paper is available at the store, the paper mill lowers its orders and fewer trees are cut. Fewer trees are planted and the ratio of trees cut to trees planted is smaller (still 1:2 but the number of trees planted is smaller, a bad thing).

Here's the rub, though. Recycling paper means that it goes through fewer companies and is therefore sold fewer times. For those of you who are pro-government, this is bad. Tex revenues from sale and resale diminish and the government suffers from fewer taxes collected. It's good for the consumer, though. The fact that it isn't sold as many times means that the price is going to be lower. Why? Everyone will want to make a profit off of the wood/paper. The logger will sell it at a price so that he can make enough to get saplings and still get a profit. The mill will sell it at a price so that they can buy more logs and still get a profit. The store will try to sell it so that they can buy more paper and still get a profit. Even the recycling company will try to scrounge up a profit. If two of those organization are dropped off the cycle completely the price would drop as well. This is what happens when someone recycles. Unfortunately, recycling is a costly procedure. It would cost maybe 1.5x the amount that the logger or mill would have (separately). Still, that's a lower price. Would you prefer a lower price? Sure! What's the other cost? Fewer trees! Crap.

I’d like to point out that I am not completely against recycling. No, in fact, I’d much rather have people recycle than not. I am, however, against recycling for he purpose of environmental safety. It is a rumor that should be stopped.

The Chrissi Fallacy

Way back when I posted in a forum and dicussed with a girl called Chrissi her beliefs as a vegetarian. In short, she became a vegetarian because she didn’t believe that humans as a whole no longer needed to eat meat. After all, there is plenty of alternative food available for consumption. Another point, made by someone named EB seemed to follow this train of thought: "You know, one serving of meat takes about ten servings of grain to produce." This argument is very sensible but also very limited.

It is true that it takes quite a bit of grain to feed one cow into maturity and then slaughter it for meat. All the grain that went into that one cow could have easily fed many more people. There would be a greater food surplus, prices would drop, and hunger would end. Cows wouldn’t be slaughtered as much, either, because we wouldn’t eat as many. What part of that sounds wrong to you?

For one thing, just because there is a price drop from a surplus does not mean that more people get to eat. Just as many people get food and they get it in larger quantities now. The only difference is the amount they paid for each unit of the food. Although the price of the item has dropped it is still quite hard for a person who is hungry to obtain the item. Why? People who could have afforded it before will snatch it up as the price falls. In reality, it would make much more sense to raise the price of the grain that is being produced than lower it. Now the average consumer will seek lower prices but the poorer person would buy the most easily obtainable package possible. Go ahead and draw the indifference curves, this is true.

There’s another matter, a morally hazardous one, which goes with the issue. Are you more willing to lessen the number of bovine births or create more incentive for potential bovine abuse? If more meat is consumed it is more likely that the breeders will keep their livestock by using inhumane methods (running out of room in your farm therefore cramming the livestock together much too tightly). If less meat is consumed it is more likely that fewer livestock will be bred. This lessens the amount of births in the first place. I choose to cause potential abuse (I don’t have to endure the cost of lost opportunity, just the cost of loss of life. This is assuming that if the livestock were bred that they would be slaughtered and I am not only suffering the loss of the life but the lack of the meat provided).

The Future: Who Really Cares?

Ok, I admit it. I care about the future. My future, at least. I plan on getting rich and having a few children, then moving to a small cottage in Montana. I hope my kids will become as successful as they can be. I can only pray that I’ll never have to retire out of work. Other than that, the future is nothing more than a dream (except maybe World Conquest. That would be nice. Kinda). If we run out of oil supplies within the next generation (and we won’t run out all too soon. If it was going to run out anytime within forecast range why haven’t the oil companies picked up on this and started charging the crap out of the limited resource?) then I guess my kids are going to have a tough time. If we run out of rainforests and many undiscovered species of monkeys die and cannot fulfill their (minor) roles in the ecosystem and my children never get to experience their ugly and frantic tendencies that’s too bad. I don’t care about the little monkeys that we don’t know about. If I don’t know about them and they die would that affect my life too much? Would it affect the lives of my children?

Why should I care about a future in which I do not exist? I will reap no benefits from doing so, not even the benefit of feeling good. I’ll be dead and pleasant emotions are of no use to a cadaver.