Read it and weep…

…then comment:

Romantic notions about the environment and technology are harmful, for their implementation can lower quality of life and worsen the problems implementation was meant to solve.

In recent years, the ideas espoused by some environmental and conservation groups have had adverse effects on agriculture, food supplies, and human health in developing countries. The difficulties these organizations create originate in their antiscience, antitechnology worldview. They deluge us with figures on soil loss, pesticide-related deaths, and alleged failed attempts at using pesticides to reduce infestation — but their figures are too often unverifiable.

In the 1970s, “small-is-beautiful,” “back-to-nature” types told us that we could sustain resources only if they were “renewable.” Two decades later, the “nonrenewable” resources we allegedly were exhausting are generally abundant and often available at historically low real prices — while the “renewable” biological resources, such as rain forests, are in danger.

Organic agriculture does not pass the first test of sustainability: It cannot sustain the existing population of the world. Actions that undercut agronomy — the science of field-crop production — are detriments to the poor and to the environment. Such actions lead to the bringing of marginal lands into cultivation.

The sustainability of agricultural techniques is an important, valid concern, but such concerns do not legitimize technological and sociocultural regression.


  • Are you a betting (wo)man? Even if you are, I bet you’re nothing compared to this guy.
  • 14-year old arrested for “Redneck Club” Initiation. This reminds me of a classmate in HS who received life without parole for killing two people and their unborn baby. He bragged about it…and there were implications it had to do with some Chicago gang initiation ritual. In the end, though, I think they “concluded” he was mentally ill.
  • You might be a Big Beautiful Woman (or man), but are you fat enough to manage this? Then again, why would you WANT to?
  • First South Park, then the newspaper:Toronto Metro “Tube Talk” writer (forgot his name) has redeemed himself, though I still find his biting sarcasm needlessly excessive: “DEAD HORSE, MEET STICK, PART TWELVE: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy will be get . . . wait for it . . . Queer Eye For The Straight Girl, according to an E! Online report. That’s right, some sorry passel of female schlubs out there are due to be scornfully made over by a group of voracious but sexually unspecified bitches. That’s right — as of this writing, the producers at Bravo are still unsure about whether the makeover gurus will be male homosexualists or female sapphists. Which bets the question — does anyone creave style advice from a beflanneled, crop-haired disel dyke? Not that I’m accusing the show of trading in sexual stereotypes.”

— お誕生日おめでとう!