|
|||||||||||||
|
Environmentalism and Consumer Rights
By Punkerslut
Info: AnxietyCenter.com Greetings, There are some things about the National Anxiety Center that deserve a review from a critical eye. I'd like to make some brief observations... "It was apparent that decades of having been told the Earth was doomed due to global warming, that the nation's forests were disappearing, that there was no place to put the garbage, that virtually every species was endangered, that drilling for oil or natural gas, or mining coal and other minerals was a danger, and that just about anything you ate, drank or breathed could kill you, an entire generation of Americans had fallen prey to these deceptions." Yes, those reams of studies on chemicals and their effects on people, thousands of them -- all are clearly just deceptions. Carbon Monoxide is poisonous? That's just another case making anything poisonous! Just like High Fructose Corn Syrup. "Legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, the vast matrix of U.S. environmental laws, and through a myriad of international treaties, protocols, and conferences everything that can be done to slow or stop development of any kind has been undertaken." Development is equated with any type of industrial development, apparently, even if that means dumping chemicals in rivers and ignoring safety legislation -- you know, like the Bho Pal disaster that killed thousands and left millions exposed to radioactive material. They saved maybe 1 to 2% of profits by not using safety equipment. Clearly, that benefit to the economy was worth the cost of suffering for so many. After all, those without limbs or facing painful cancer will see that 1 to 2% "trickle down," right? What a joyous and happy system! And also paranoid, "That it was, in fact, based on failed socialist economic theory and sought to impose a world government directed by the United Nations." This is your interpretation of the green, environmental movement. You're such a suspicious guy, that you doubt any environmental legislation as having its intended effect. And you're so suspicious, that it's clear there's some new world order movement behind them that's trying to completely dominate the globe... ehm.... by passing laws that conserve forests and rivers. Clearly, that should be taken at face value! One of the more impressive statements is this: "Efforts to leave millions vulnerable to diseases can be seen in the U.S. and U.N. attacks on the use of pesticides such as DDT. This has contributed directly to the needless deaths of millions from Malaria and other insect and rodent-borne diseases." DDT, as in one of the chemicals used with Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. The rate of birth deformities in Vietnam, when the nation was coated in the Agent Orange defoliant by US forces, significantly increased up to 5%. [*1] Many of the deformities include those born without eyes or without functioning eyes, sometimes affecting entire families. [*2] The wildlife population, too, has been contaminated severely by this chemical. For instance, unlike any other place in the world, birds are often born with deformed beaks that cannot be used from the DDT contamination. [*3] All of this is the documented, scientifically-investigated results of DDT being used in this poor, Southeastern nation. So, what kind of trade-off are you making there? "With DDT, the farm's productivity increases by 3 and a half percent... at the cost of 5 percent of the population being exposed to mutagenic toxins. But, some of the wealth from that 3 and a half percent will trickle down to the poorest people, so it'll balance out." It seems like a such an absurd argument, that people would rather have a 1 or 2% increase in material standard -- at the cost of deformed children who may spend their short lives in pain and suffering. Your uncompromising support for DDT is a scientifically-unfounded suggestion -- it runs contrary to everything we know in chemistry, biology, and ecology. If you believe that the purpose of society is to increase the economic opportunity and liberty of its participants, then DDT ought to be banned entirely. This is not some careless economic argument; it is based on the simple fact that people tend to be happier when their children are born without lasting, painful, physical deformities. The advantages of DDT, which help only a very few who are wealthy, are balanced on the other side by the agonizing suffering of masses. If one child with a deformity caused by DDT is a tragedy, then what can be said of the millions who have become a statistic of global Capitalism? And if you do not believe that society should be founded on the improvement of benefiting all, then there is no morality or ethics in your message. It is not a suggestion for improving prosperity, well-being, and happiness for all, but just an excuse for helping the very few Capitalists enjoy their privilege of domination over everyone. Thank you. I patiently await a response... Sincerely, Resources *1. "Agent Orange: Birth defects plague Vietnam; U.S. slow to help," ChicagoTribune.com.*2. "Agent Orange: 'Collateral Damage' in Viet Nam," DigitalJournalist.org. *3. "Drastic Deformities," by PBS.org.
|
