Tuesday, April 19, 2011

BAAAAA...D DOGGIES: How responsibility for despoiling the planet is transferred from rich complicit corporations to dumb citizens

Image source
By CanSpeccy

"The authors of a provocative new book have bad news for animal-lovers" reports the Guardian: "pets are bad for the planet. They consume vast amounts of precious resources, produce mountains of noxious waste – and they can be a disaster for wildlife."

O.K., so you've cooked and eaten your pet. Then what? You going to ask the boss to lower your salary so you don't spend the money you just saved on your pet in ways that may be even more destructive to the environment?


Thought not. But then if you do spend the money you saved on your pet, how do you know that you've lowered your environmental impact?

Obviously, you don't. So the whole idea of getting rid of your pet is just meaningless rubbish, right?

Wrong. It is far from rubbish. What this story is telling you is that you are to blame for the destruction of the planet. You personally. And you as a member of the human race. Either way you are destroying the world and would be best classified as a noxious pest: vermin, to be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

But why, as one of God's children, born in his image, are you to be thus dismissed?

For two reasons.

First, unless you have an IQ of 140 plus and a higher degree in electrical engineering, robotics, or something in the mind-control field, the plutocracy considers you an unnecessary excrescence.

Haven't you noticed? A pair of hands has an ever diminishing value in the labor market. Productivity is the name of the game. That means substituting technology for people. At the airport, check-in with that robot; in the factory, assemble cars with robots; at the fast food outlet they still have people, but those people don't do much except press buttons on some kind of terminal. Soon you'll be doing the button pressing for yourself and your do nut will be delivered by robot down a chute.

War's the same, common mortals aren't of much value when it comes to the business of mass murder. Automated killing machines are the wave of the future. If an operator is needed, it will be a techie at CIA headquarters in Virginia, or some such place, flying a drone half a world away and wiping out Afghan wedding parties at the touch of a button.

Second, blaming you for environmental damage to the planet saves the corporations a whole world of complication and expense. Making paper without poisoning the water with toxic chemicals costs money. Generating electricity from coal without spewing mercury into the atmosphere, which settles in the ocean where it is accumulated by fishes that are consumed by humans, who become autistic, schizophrenic or whatever, costs huge heaps of money. Making vaccines without mercury is so difficult, apparently, that big pharma just got legal immunity for whatever harm their vaccines do.

So yeah, let's just leave it all to the the dumb citizen to figure out the environmental and human consequences of whatever they do, eat, or allow to be injected into their bodies.

As if he could. How would I know whether producing a pound of cat's meat does more or less harm to the planet than burning a liter of gas, or renting a video? Should you waste an employer's time making sure every sheet of paper is printed both sides? Or will the loss in productivity this entails have other environmental impacts you hadn't considered?

Forget it. No one has a clue how to reduce their impact on the environment, other than to stay in bed all day, earn nothing, and die of starvation. Why not do it: become the first environmental martyr.

But if you can keep folks worrying what horrible destructive vermin humans are, it takes the heat off the corporations that knowingly, willfully, and with a total psychopathic disregard for human welfare pollute and despoil the planet.

This is a revised version of an item appearing at the canadianspectator.ca in 2010.


  1. Perhaps Leo Hickman has never heard of Balto, the dog that saved Nome Alaska.

    My dog is no Balto, but he substitutes for a motion sensor, a security firm, a door bell, a rabbit defense system, and a heater.

    I suppose this rat-fink has never heard the term THREE DOG NIGHT.

    Leo is just another Toadie in his "Possum Kingdom"

    "Low Plains Perspective"

  2. "Perhaps Leo Hickman has never heard of Balto, the dog that saved Nome Alaska."

    But one has to set against the heroism of Balto, the action of that Newfoundland fishing dog that save Napoleon from drowning as he made his escape from the Island of Elba.

  3. The Newfoundland has some cool instincts. I've never heard of a dog pulling a boat or jumping in the water and being used as a flotation device.

    I'll have to give it a go sometime when I come across a Newfoundland!

    Leo Hickman is gonna be a lot lower on the list of animals we don't need than a Newfoundland, that's for sure, eh!

    "Low Plains Perspective"

  4. "Leo Hickman is gonna be a lot lower on the list of animals we don't need than a Newfoundland, that's for sure, eh!?"

    I was thinking the Napoleon incident was somewhat to the discredit of the Newfoundland breed. I mean, no discrimination!

    As a result we had to have the Battle of Waterloo and the British Empire.