Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring--the book that got mosquito-killer DDT banned and launched the modern environmental movement--while struggling with cancer. The disease killed Carson in 1964, two years after Silent Spring came out.
Today's Washington Post has a story on Carson--whose 100th birth anniversary occurs later this month--and her noble fight against cancer. A touching piece.
But maddening, too! Because in the story's 34 paragraphs, there are only a buried pair, the 26th and 27th, that note the ongoing controversy about DDT's ban.
A Maryland Congressman (evil Republican, of course ... wink, wink) is quoted as saying that malaria deaths might have been prevented had DDT not been banned.
That happens to be true. DDT kills mosquitoes, which carry malaria, which was all but eradicated before DDT was banned.
Buried in paragraph 27, and paraphrasing the Congressman, The Washington Post concedes that "numerous" deaths might have been prevented by DDT.
Let's stop here. Any curious reader would ask, Just how "numerous" is numerous? Wouldn't you ask that question? The Post never asks that question. Why?
Because the answer devastates Rachel Carson and her followers. According to these CDC figures, malaria kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year.
Every year, 800,000 small children die from malaria, a disease once nearly eradicated. Ponder that.
And all The Washington Post can say is "numerous?"
I would term it "outrageous"; as well as thoroughly disgusting, but typical of a certain mindset.
The unintended consequences ushered in by the do-gooders--who always know what's best for us hapless humans--are almost always devastating and destructive when policy is dictated by hysteria and a reliance on fear (or other feelings), rather than on reality. They mean well, after all. It isn't their fault that reality gets in the way of their implementation of utopian policies!
It isn't their fault that the environment is a complex system! They only mean the best for us.
For decades these pathetic do-gooders have sought to escape responsibility for the condequences of their fantasies. The world is littered with the corpses and awash in the tears of the people who they have "helped". Fantasy environmentalism is only one of a series of strategies they have fallen back on as they reassert their socialist ideology and attempt to chain all of humanity to its domination.
Ask yourself how Al Gore's obsession has become required classroom reading. And how our children are being indoctrinated right this moment in the K-12 classrooms into the holy rituals of the environmental histrionics.
In this post I argued that multiculturalism, postmodern politically correct thought, and radical environmentalism were three of the four major strategies used by socialism's deadenders to keep their failed 20th century ideology alive.
In case you doubt the anti-human, anti-capitalist agenda of todays radical left environmentalists, here's a recent cartoon that sums it up for you:
As you can see, the gist of the cartoon is that global warming is being deliberately caused by all about those money-grubbing capitalists. A few short years ago (1979), the cartoon would have shown the earth suspended above ice cubes placed by the mad businesses of the world intent on causing global cooling.
We can all thank Rachel Carson for starting the trend, or "How a courageous woman took on the chemical industry and raised important questions about humankind's impact on nature. "
None of her followers today will courageously look at--let alone raise--the important questions about the human results of their political impact, will they?
Those who promulgate these environmental fantasies conveniently forget the environmental disasters that socialist and communist paradises in the world have presided over in the last 50 years or so. They ignore real data about the fact that the rise in CO2 emissions is almost exclusively the result of the backward and primitive cultures they idealize in their nature worship; and instead prefer to blame America and capitalism.
The fundamental goal of these radical environmentalists is not to end global warming; instead, it is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological and political agenda. They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet--but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.
Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life. The solution lies in technical advances to help humans adapt to climate change. Not to kill off the humans in order to save the planet.
If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. What they really want is power over people.
Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.
For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.
The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" --including technology--which they assert "proves" that socialism works; except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive),insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs--a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for).
Neither represents real science.
Over at Gates of Vienna, the Baron noted in an earlier post:
Now, implicit in these statements is the fact that it must have been even warmer before that. Sometime previously, the Earth was warmer than it is now. Can you believe it? How did civilization survive such a catastrophe? Was that what put Atlantis under the waves — ancient global warming?
What do you think caused it? Was it those coal-fired generating plants the Romans built all over the Empire? Or maybe the SUVs that Jesus and His disciples tooled around the desert in?
What this all goes to show is that the world has been colder than it is now, and it has also been warmer — presumably considerably warmer at times. Regardless of the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are natural, cyclical fluctuations in global climate that far exceed any changes in temperature that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
It’s too early to identify the effects that the human activity has on global temperatures; serious and reliable data have only been available for a micro-instant in climatological terms. The apocalyptic stampede by the cognoscenti to embrace Kyoto and destroy the world’s economy is one of the more foolhardy ideas to come down the pike.
But the elites are certain that Global Warming is Truth; all else is Heresy.
The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".
I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a
Perhaps that is why they have consciously and deliberately joined forces with radical Islam, which suffers from the same inabilty to bring peace (unless you count death as the ultimate "peace") and prosperity to their adherents; and has the same fantasy.
Fantasy environmentalism -- bringing new life into the utopian agenda, and coming soon to a theater near you!