Monday, June 20, 2005


Actually, it's more like bad science.

I saw an interesting piece on TV yesterday where different scientists debated the merits and demerits of whaling. The arguments go like this:


1. "Leftists" -- there is no commercial need for whales. Their primary use in the past was for the reduction of their blubber to oil, a need which no longer exists. They are intelligent mammals who should be left alone.

2. "Rightists" -- the banning of whaling has resulted in some species of whales becoming as common as cockroaches. These now plentiful whales are decimating fisheries as the result of some whale species overeating the krill that the fish feed on and other species overeating the fish themselves. If whaling was allowed, even if the whales were ground up to used as fertilizer or pet food, the whales would still survive in large numbers and the depletion of fisheries would stop, providing more (and therefore cheaper) fish for human consumption.


Then again, there's the problem with malaria, perhaps the most devastating disease of the past forty years. The primary reason it has been so devastating is the lack of a cheap viable pesticide. Well, that's not exactly true. DDT would work just fine but, thanks to Rachel Carson's pseudo-science, it isn't available.

So, you decide. In these two examples, there are those who opt to "protect the environment" and those who opt to "protect human beings."

Which are you?

PS Don't wimp out -- you can't have it both ways.


Post a Comment

<< Home