National Geographic... Again

Wow, National Geographic has lately been giving me lots to talk about. In this issue, there are two, no, three articles I want to discuss. First, there's a great article on bionics. It's really cool, the advances in artificial limbs. Second, there's the article on illegal wildlife trafficking. It goes through the usual, "People are -gasp- using endangered species! Even worse, they're making a profit! How horrible!" It then talks with dread about the possibility of raising tigers for profit, farming basically. Personally, I would prefer having a huge range in Africa for the tigers to breed in, but also allow adventurers and thrill seekers to go on safari and hunt the beasts, then selling the product. For a price, of course. But no, farming tigers is somehow horrible, despite the fact that it would save the species from extinction. As one book put it, the environmentalist thinks, "Tigers going extinct: bad. Capitalism: worse." That about sums it up.
The last article I want to talk about is their article on Singapore. You know, the tiny little country off the coast of Southeast Asia that is unbelievably prosperous compared to its neighbors? Well, the folks at NatGeo attribute its success to the tight regulations on personal liberties. Obviously, they think that the prosperity of Singapore is thanks to socialism. Minor problem: The article mentions not one economic regulation, and Singapore is actually more capitalistic and economically free than the USA. The lack of personal liberty is wrong, of course, but as far as economics goes, Singapore is a shining example of capitalism run wild. Not as scary as some people would have you think, is it?

This Man is INSANE.

Yes, National Geographic has inspired yet another post. I was reading an article on some hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa, and came across quite possibly the most idiotic, stupid, loony, and utterly insane idea ever to disgrace the pages of that magazine. The idea was taken from the INSANE man mentioned earlier, Jared Diamond. He is the producer of the poorly-researched Guns, Germs, and Steel, which attributes medieval to Victorian Europe's success solely to those three things. His INSANE idea, however, is far crazier than his claims about Europe. He says-prepare yourself-that agriculture is the worst mistake mankind has ever made. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, Mr. Diamond would not mind not having a sure food supply, effective medicine, modern technology, and an insanely high standard of living, none of which are possible without agriculture. He blames agriculture for warfare, class stratification, disease epidemics, and major famines. Okaaayyy... You gotta wonder about the mental health of goons who claim things like that, but I'll address his claims one by one.

Class stratification: The problem with this claim is that it's so stinking vague. If he means loosely defined "classes" as in, upper, middle, and lower class in terms of income, too bad. It's a fact of life. Some people are rich, others are poor. I believe several countries tried to eliminate classes. What were they...? Oh, yeah, I remember! Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and a bunch of others. That worked nicely, didn't it?
If he means special treatment for the rich and permanent class seperation, I have no clue where he's getting it. In a capitalistic society(another benefit of that "mistake"), you can go from poor to rich with a little luck and a lot of skill. Permanent and semipermanent stratification last occured back in medieval times, and I'm not really sure if that counts.

Disease epidemics: Mr. Diamond is obviously ignorant of one benefit of agriculture that counters this. Most people refer to it as "medicine." We now have cures for almost all infectious diseases, and medicine that helps counter almost everything else. Not possible without agriculture.

Famines: Again, he is obviously clueless to the fact that there has not been a major famine in developed areas for hundreds of years. I think we can all agree that agriculture prevents starvation rather than increases it.

Warfare: I sincerely hope that he's kidding with this one. Indians, people. When European settlers first arrived, the majority of Indian tribes were hunter-gatherers. Funny thing, they still killed each other. I am amazed that anyone can take this guy seriously.

Another National Geographic Inspired Post

So I'm reading the September issue of NatGeo, and I see an article about solar power. The genius who wrote the article kept talking about how great solar was. No emissions! They show lots of neat pictures of solar plants, but those pictures are what reminded me of solar's greatest weakness. They take up lots of room, and are not effecient. The following picture is of two of the plants shown in NatGeo. Not the same picture, but it has the same effect:



A single nuclear power plant would produce far more energy than these two solars put together, ZERO emissions for you environmentalists, and would take up the same amount of space as one of the central buildings in the above photo. Remind me why we don't just switch to nuclear?

National Geaographic and the E.S.A.

You know how in my post about Reader's Digest and National Geaographic I said that N.G. gained a lot of respect from me? Well, they just lost it. Every last bit, and then some. E.S.A. stands for Endangered Species Act, but it should be called the Endangering Species Act. In this issue of N.G., they dedicate one section to the glorification of the worthless Act. They claim that it helped save several different species, including the American alligator and grizzly bear. However, the alligator was saved by a drop in the demand for its skins, which took place BEFORE the E.S.A. was passed, while the grizzly bear that was supposedly saved was only ONE POPULATION. N.G. also says that polar bears are endangered by habitat loss, which they most certainly are not, despite being on the endangered list. They have a picture of one with the number 3500 beside it, which implies there are only 3500 left. However, if you looked closely at one of the little tiny notes, you would see the words "in Alaska." The notes really are tiny, and located so that the average reader wouldn't look at them, since the picture and number are all that most folks care about. The environmentalist argument is that loss of sea ice threatens them, but they happen to be perfectly capable of living on land, and are common in northern Canada. 11 out of 13 populations are stable or rising. Wow, funny how easy it is to go off-subject. Anyhow, the ESA actually encourages elimination of species. Here's how it works: When the government finds out about an endangered species on your land, they essentially take it from you, by not allowing you to do anything
with it. In California for instance, you're not allowed to build a firebreak to protect your home from a wildfire. Why? It might disturb the kangaroo rat! What? You would rather save your house than avoid harming a kangaroo rat?! Get your priorities right! This idea causes harm to the rat by not allowing development for protection, which does two things: either the owner wishes to protect his/her home, so they kill the critter before the Feds find out, or the Feds find out, regulate the land, and a fire kills the things. Same with a certain tree farmer. The gov. discovered a rare type of woodpecker on a section of his land, and, of course, regulated it. He understandably wanted to use the rest of his land (which NG villifies) and promptly clear-cut the rest of his land. I would probably do the same thing.

Reader's Digest vs. National Geographic: The Orangutan

I am really sorry that I haven't posted in forever. I've been meaning to for the past two and a half weeks, but haven't gotten around to it. Anyway, in the latest issue of Reader's Digest there was an article discussing the endangered orangutan. Predictably, they put almost all the blame on evil loggers cutting down habitat, and, predictably, not stating that they probably had to do it to make a little bit of money to survive on (In fact, the Indonesian government pays $16.50 for the right arm of an orangutan, further reducing their numbers). The main cause of habitat destruction in Indonesia is, prepare yourselves, BIOFUELS! As usual, they fail to mention that demand for palm oil for ethanol and other uses encourages more palm oil plantations, and in fact dedicate most of another article to glorifying biofuels. In the latest issue of National Geographic, however, they point out the underlying reason for the problem of constant palm plantation expansion: it's a pretty poor country, and more foreign buyers equals more money. Put yourself in the position of the average Indonesian. Would you rather kill orangutans and end up better off, or save them and remain dirt poor? One study found that when per capita GDP reaches $8000, the public starts to be more concerned about things such as habitat preservation and saving endangered species. I was surprised when NG actually pointed out these problems and including biofuels in the blame. Needless to say, they earned a whole lot of respect frome me.

Global Warming Stupidity

Well, I'm sorry I haven't posted in forever, but I haven't thought of anything to post. In fact, I had thought about deleting the blog. Until, that is, this month's issue of Reader's Digest came in. As I flipped through, I found an article about a little village in Alaska called Kivalina. The caption below the title claimed that it was "melting into the sea." The island that it's located on has been shrinking for the past fifty years, mostly because of erosion. However, with the current warming trend and the global warming hysteria, they're starting to blame climate change. The inhabitants of the town were going to have to move, and since it's because of "global warming", they filed suit against TWENTY FOUR oil, electricity, and coal companies for causing climate change. That was not a typo. And the insanity doesn't stop there! They claimed that some of the companies conspired to create a "false debate" about global warming to "fool the public." First of all, the debate is real, and if anyone's attempting to fool the public, it's the other way around. Second, does Reader's Digest protest this stupidity? No! They claim that "global warming and its effects on the arctic are well-documented", implying that it's proven. I'll post again if I find out if they win the case.