So, research is confirming what we've long suspected - vegetarians have significantly lower sperm counts than men who follow an omnivorous diet. Not only does the research, reported here in the Telegraph, show lower sperm counts, it also shows that the sperm have lower motility - in other words they're not that good at swimming. What does this mean? It means it's evolution's way of removing vegans from the gene pool.
Now, if only someone can do the research to correlate sperm count and motility with climate alarmism we might have something really positive to report...
What the hell is a progressive contrarian? Well, when the terms left-wing and right-wing have lost any meaning whatsoever, is there any fundamental fault line that means anything politically any more? The only true differentiator is between those who believe that human progress is both desirable and possible, and those who don't. The real split these days is between progressives and reactionaries. And contrarian? That should speak for itself...
Monday, October 20, 2014
Monday, October 13, 2014
Go With The Flow - Pissing In The Wind
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the 'go with the flow' campaign has picked up so much momentum. For those who've missed it, this is the campaign to encourage people to piss in the shower as a way of preserving valuable water resources. Picked up by the BBC (naturally), and subsequently it's gone pretty viral. How many people who take a sneaky leak in the shower knew they were making a political statement?
Personally, I find the whole thing pretty depressing. Is this what it's come to? The campaign hails from two students at the University of East Anglia (Climateh=gate central to you and me). It somehow says a lot for the limited horizons of today's student eco-activists. The poverty to ambition is there. The pant-wetting excitement and endorsement from our establishment. The focus on limiting our ecological foot-print, trying to make us as invisible as possible. The incredible smugness of it...
How is this radical? Access to clean water is a real issue in lots of parts of the developing world. But not in Norwich as far as I know. Last time I was there it looked like there was plenty of water to go round. Will the water saved from not flushing the toilet after peeing in the shower get shipped to parts of the world where it could be useful? Nope. This is more about the illusion of radicalism than anything else. If they really want to make a difference then why aren't they campaigning for access to cheap electricity and infrastructure devlopment that will make a lasting difference to poor people without access to clean water? Why aren't they campaigning for more development not less?
And why stop at peeing? If they really want to show solidarity with poor people without access to resources, then why not take a dump and use the dried turds as a cooking fuel? Why not disconnect from the electricity grid and go to burning dung inside - then they can really experience what it's like to have no resources.
Personally, I find the whole thing pretty depressing. Is this what it's come to? The campaign hails from two students at the University of East Anglia (Climateh=gate central to you and me). It somehow says a lot for the limited horizons of today's student eco-activists. The poverty to ambition is there. The pant-wetting excitement and endorsement from our establishment. The focus on limiting our ecological foot-print, trying to make us as invisible as possible. The incredible smugness of it...
How is this radical? Access to clean water is a real issue in lots of parts of the developing world. But not in Norwich as far as I know. Last time I was there it looked like there was plenty of water to go round. Will the water saved from not flushing the toilet after peeing in the shower get shipped to parts of the world where it could be useful? Nope. This is more about the illusion of radicalism than anything else. If they really want to make a difference then why aren't they campaigning for access to cheap electricity and infrastructure devlopment that will make a lasting difference to poor people without access to clean water? Why aren't they campaigning for more development not less?
And why stop at peeing? If they really want to show solidarity with poor people without access to resources, then why not take a dump and use the dried turds as a cooking fuel? Why not disconnect from the electricity grid and go to burning dung inside - then they can really experience what it's like to have no resources.
Labels:
Africa,
BBC,
climate change,
energy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)