Save the Itchy Algae!

Tonight's King of the Hill talks about Bobby joining an environmentalists' (Mr McKay's) fight to protect some garbage water from being drained so the algae can live. As usual, the cartoon pokes fun of the stupidity in modern civilization and the ridiculous rules that humans create. KotH rules!

I'm all for protecting the Earth and its resources so we can maintain the quality of life for ourselves and our future generations. But from what I can see, some people do it without knowing why and what they should protect. I truly believe there are many (not all) who jumped on the bandwagon because:

1. they want to belong to a group
2. they have nothing better to do
3. they want to feel they are doing something important
4. they are looking to do something bold to spice up their autobiography
5. they smoked too much weed during the 70's
6. they want to meet chicks/guys, or
7. all of the above

Some of those people speak in condescending manners about normal people's wasting habits, eating meat or indifference to endangered species. To save our environment? well, yes, but that's only a side effect of their trying to demonstrate to the world that they are superior to the rest of us. I have much respect for true environmentalists. The poseurs try to gain that same status by acting like they're saving the world. But the fact is, the genuine nature-lovers earned our love and respect because they are usually loving, considerate, open and spirited (probably that's what drove them to be environmentalists in the first place), not because they act all crazy and mean to people that they disagree with. What's worse? the government/politicians also hopped on the Green train in order to get a few more votes, resulting in many ridiculous environmental regulations (especially the ones for protecting near extinct species that no one ever heard of or need or care).

To me, the rule of thumb as to what we should protect should be:

1. if the species or environment is beneficial to human kind, or
2. if its protection poses no inconvenience to human kind, or
3. if it is the human species.

The idea is DO only if human kind will end up better off, and absolute DON'T if human kind will end up worse off. "Human kind", in this context, could be loosely defined as the majority of the human population affected. Here are some examples:

Water pollution causes the algae population in certain large body of water to deplete. Should we try to protect them? Answer: yes. Even though algae make the water you like to swim in green or brown or purple and may cause you skin to have allergic reactions, they are important contributors to the world's oxygen supply. If we lost the algae, we would not breathe very easily. In that case, protecting the algae (and our ecosystem) is good, let's move on.

In a not-yet developed construction site of a future commercial establishment, some near-extinct species of flies is discovered. There are fewer than 100 of these flies in the world. They can only survive in the delicate balance provided by this habitat. Should we protect them by prohibiting the land owner from continuing the development? Answer: fucking no. There are too few of them to cause any significant changes in our ecosystem. They will not disturb the food chain because the frogs and spiders will enjoy other kinds of flies just as much (if you're a frog and you're picky about what kind of flies to eat, you deserve to die). The flies probably started disappearing because of natural selection. Why should businesses suffer monetary loss and jobs be ruined and people's lives be crushed just because some biologists like to look at some rare flies!?!??!

Some people might argue that I chose not to protect the flies because they're ugly and disgusting. To be fair, I feel the same way about the young seal cubs in the North. You know why people try to save them? it's just because they look so damn cute! and that's about the only thing they do. If you think about it, there's really no good reason to save those cubs from the natives (who are humans, like us) who need them to survive. This seal cubs saving movement is actually a discrimination against a certain group of humans! And if I'm not mistaken, these seals are causing problems for the rest of us, too, because they are diminishing our supply of cod (and other sorts of fish).

In my not-so-humble opinion, some acts of nature preservation are actually cruelty to our own kind. You have the power to save the Earth, but please exercise that power with intelligence, or at least with common sense.

"Children are the future, today belongs to me."

It's a quote by Ms Naegles from the Simpsons.

This made me think of all the child protection laws we have today. I don't have a kid yet, but no spanking?! how in the world will a parent be able to discipline their child (or to get even with what THEIR parents did to them :)? I believe there are a few parents out there who are capable of bringing up a good child without corporal punishment, but for the rest, it is the most effective and straightforward way to discipline a kid. Not all parents have the time to explain every right and wrong to their child with all the sex and violence and weird things that go on in the world today. Moderate spanking might just be the negative reenforcement a child needs to avoid making the wrong choices early in life. I'm not talking about cruel and usual punishment like kneeling on broken glass or sitting through an entire episode of Oprah, but just enough pain (and perhaps humiliation) to get the point across. I'm sure glad my parents "taught" me the way they did when I was a kid. They helped me make the right choices that I was too young to comprehend, and then I gradually realized why I had to make those choices as I grew up.

Now because of a few bad apples (those who abuse their children), parents' ability to bring up a good child is crippled. At the same time, we see more and more young criminals and delinquents on the streets. Coincidence?

A post about nothing

This blog was created on October 17th, 2004, 6:59pm Eastern Time.

It was originally named "a blog about nothing". Then I did a search on Google and found out that there already exists 5150 "blog(s) about nothing" (5151 if you count foxnews.com). So I changed it to something that will actually show up on the first page of a web search.