Saturday, March 12, 2005

The Problems With Biology, Part IV

Part III
Part II
Part I

Okay, so the last three bio-posts seemed like nothing but incoherent rants on random affairs in the biological sciences, and were a complete affront to the Religious Right. O-kay, as I stated before.

What's the point of it? My point is that I've decided on my mission. My mission in life. It will probably fail, but at least I will know that I gave it a shot.

You may have heard of this man, Paul Ehrlich. This site gives a pretty good lowdown of the guy. In high schools across the country, and especially mine, his work is among the cornerstones of the beliefs of many teachers. His ideas were supposed to have been relegated to the dustbin of history, but AP Biology teachers (okay, biology teachers in general) never seemed to cease their fretting about running out of water, or materials, or overpopulation of the Earth.

The man is one of the cornerstones of the left-centric biology movement itself. While he himself is slowly fading from memory (you know, because he's always WRONG), there has been no shortage of followers to predict doom because "we're killing mother Earth" or something similar.

My very first point in this three-part series was that the new equilibrium being reached between blogs and MSM has shown me that this can be done as well.

It is my duty, as well as the duty of every good biology student left in the United States, to toss the "eco-weenies", the environmentalists, the conservationists, the animal-rights (but not human-rights) groups, and the rest of the "We hate Humanity" group OUT of biology. Forever. Biology is the study of life. We should of course be kind to animals, but sometimes an animal has to go in order for the human race to keep going. And remember, humans have veterinarians for animals. No animal gives a $#!t about treating humans that another member of its species attacked.

We must turn biology back to finding out where we came from, and finding out how to prolong life, and make life itself better. Food production must continue to soar, as new bioengineered (read: grown under different than usual conditions) foods make their way into our diets. We should continue neuropsychological studies - knowing how the brain works will be a huge part of the future. Protecting the rain forests is all well and good, but seeing as between 80 to 85% of the oxygen in our atmosphere comes from the oceans, the rain forests are more of an aesthetic value than anything else. (Oh yes, they're home to animals who possess human diseases unlike those we've ever seen, but we HAVE TO LET EVERY ANIMAL LIVE, of course). Remember - the whales do as much damage to the oxygen level of earth as we do every year. I forget where I read that. <(>_<)>

In summation:

1. Conservatives must get serious about an alternate non-petroleum based fuel.

2. Biologists need to kick the humanity-hating Animal Rights Activists and Enviro-mentalpatients (sorry - Eco-weenies) (sorry again - enviromentalists) out of biology. There is no place for the hate these people spew.

3. Conservatives need to be a tad more open about medical science. Faith healing really does not do the job, and it's really upsetting watching the Pope absolve himself of medical science during his final years. Then again, it's his choice. But that doesn't make it any less depressing.

4. "End-of-the-world-is-nigh" professors need to retire. The world is fine, and if you want to save resources, stop taking my oxygen. Do you KNOW how much oxygen you take in by breathing? Quite a bit.

5. People who want to save the environment (by which they mean trees), need to buy parcels of land with trees on it and refuse to sell. That way, the trees stay. Unless, of course, Kelo v. New London goes the wrong way. Then all bets are off.

Thanks for your time in reading this rant which took several hours to write. Enjoy the baba gannouj, but since I'm so tired, you'll have to cook it yourself.

Support This Site