Plumbing the Depths of Stupidity

I’m always amazed when people refuse to believe in God because it’s not “scientific” or “rational”, and this latest offering by the great gods of human wisdom just proves my point: Austrian and German scientists have just published a study purporting to show that humans are hogging the sun’s energy.  Damn our greedy souls to hell!  What these brilliant experts have really shown, of course, is that they are the unparalleled masters of self-parody in this fallen world.  I’ll put my faith in God and Jesus Christ, thank you very much: these idiots can’t see past the ends of their noses.

The study analyzes data on land use, agriculture, and forestry over 97% of Earth’s land mass, and concludes that humans use 24% of solar energy captured by plants—a share far out of proportion to our population amongst the world’s living creatures.

Well, duh.  The boneheaded assumption underlying this study is typically liberal;  i.e., that the production and consumption of any resource (energy, money, whatever) is a zero-sum game.  Under this fallacious premise, our proportionally greater harvesting of solar energy results in a deficit for other species.  This is ridiculous on its face, and let me tell you why:

1.  Get a load of what Snow Barlow, an Australian agriculture professor with a cool name and a pea-sized brain, says this about the study’s findings: “Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we’re grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources . . . we’re probably being a bit greedy.”  Um, Mr. Barlow, there is no shortage of solar energy.  As more rational scientists have told us, our Sun is brightening and its increasing heat is probably the cause of global warming (another “no shit!” deduction from our secular gods).  We’ll be lucky if the darn thing doesn’t fry us to crisps one day, and all the primitive living and Prius-driving in the world couldn’t stop it.  Also, until the Sun burns out, its energy is endlessly renewable (a fact Mr. Barlow helpfully points out yet somehow fails to absorb).  If humans as a species focused 100% of our energy, 24 hours a day, on harvesting solar energy, we would never even tap the surface of that particular resource. 

2.  Is there some sort of crisis in the world of flora and fauna we’ve missed?  I highly doubt The New York Times or Al Gore would’ve failed to mention such a thing.  Animals and plants are not suffering from a shortage of solar energy in their life cycles, so why this study?  What’s the point?  Isn’t scientific analysis supposed to be a means to some sort of end; i.e., progress of some sort?  If humans were to reduce our consumption of solar energy to a share in proportion to our global population, what positive effect would that have on animal and plant life?  Absolutely none.

3.  Productive land use, agriculture, and forestry are exclusively human endeavors, but benefit the animal/plant world too.  Forestry includes conservation, i.e., planting more trees; agriculture feeds animals and preserves their populations; and human land use includes the preservation of animals’ habitats.  Animals are incapable of growing and harvesting crops, cutting down or planting trees, and cultivating land in general.  Their use of solar energy is strictly limited to absorbing the Sun’s light and energy through their bodies and the food they eat.  It’s asinine to compare humans’ intentional and organized use of natural resources with the basic biological functions of animals and plants.    

Like I said, I’ll put my faith in God.  I have zero faith in science: congratulating scientists for puzzling out basic realities of the physical world is like lauding the genius of a small child who figures out that fire is hot.  The wisdom of man. . .what a joke.


~ by lewdandlascivious on July 3, 2007.

14 Responses to “Plumbing the Depths of Stupidity”

  1. May I add the most obvious of issues? Basic food chain/food web. Yes, carnivores use more energy than herbivores. Herbivores get their calories directly from plants, and carnivores get them from herbivores. There’s about a ten-fold increase as you go up the food chain.

    More than that, when we die, or when plants die, all of that gets broken down by bacteria and worms and such. Guess what? They are also using energy captured by plants! It just goes through us first.


  2. Holy over-reaction, batman. Queenie, I love you to death, you know that, but wow. First of all, most science that leads to an end is “hoppy-cock” when it’s first proposed. No big finding starts with great praise and admiration. Second, the study is to show the dominance that humans have had on this planet. I find the study interesting b/c it puts our place on the planet in a new and different perspective. Did you ever know what percentage use of the “world’s energy” we’re using? I’m sure they realize that the sun’s energy is unlimited, but they’re simply showing that the basic block of energy on our planet (the sun) and our place in the “chain,” as theobromophile points out.

    Second, I really do need to point out a flaw in your reasoning in #3. The point of agriculture is not b/c animals cannot grow food themselves. We’re the only species (save a few apes and insects) that actually “grow” food. The problem is that when we grow our food, it takes away their food. When we cut down trees, it takes away their habitats and leads to their extinction. I realize it’s merely “scientific hookie-pookie,” but scientists predict that HALF of the world’s species will be gone in 200 to 300 years b/c of us. I know you’re thoroughly disagree with me, but humans are in many ways a cancer upon this planet. We’re slowly, but deliberately killing it.

    Finally, you can’t use conservation efforts in an argument for development. The liberals are the only reason “conservation” is a buzz word now. Same with “equality” and “civil rights.” You can’t use that now that conservatives don’t have arguments against them now.

  3. The problem is that when we grow our food, it takes away their food. When we cut down trees, it takes away their habitats and leads to their extinction.

    Not really. We’ve been able to use agriculture to grow our food very efficiently and in environments that are not naturally conducive to natural plant growth. It is not as if we are using 24% of the Earth’s surface to grow food, which is what ultimately destroys habitat; rather, we are able to grow our food in small areas and much more efficiently.

    There are six billion humans on earth. Assuming that they weigh an average of 150 lbs each (which includes kids), there are 900 billion pounds of human on earth. It takes roughly ten calories to maintain a pound of weight, every day – that’s 9 trillion calories that we need, every day. Anyone who thinks that we could get that without modern agriculture is smoking some really good stuff.

    If you’re concerned, go vegetarian.

  4. Finally, you can’t use conservation efforts in an argument for development. The liberals are the only reason “conservation” is a buzz word now. Same with “equality” and “civil rights.” You can’t use that now that conservatives don’t have arguments against them now.

    The modern Republican party was founded as the party in opposition to slavery. As I recall, it was a bunch of conservative Christian types who lead the charge against enslaving our fellow man.

  5. Great points. I think this is part and parcel to the green agenda in general. Scientists like this attempt to lay the philosophical ground work for a future eugenics movement. Elites have long been fascinated with eugenics going back to Rockefellers, Carnegie, Harriman, Ford, HG Wells, Margaret Sanger, Huxley and Winston Churchill. Elites of today push this same eugenics agenda under the green movement. Just look for the new eugenics term called sustainability. It is everywhere the green agenda is and it will lead to things like one child policy and carbon tax.

    Don’t miss the eugenics forest for the sustainable trees.

    Thanks for raising issue with this study. I wonder who funds them.

  6. This is the Queen of Swords’ best friend … not that I expect any kind of immunity, here,for that (AND I’m way less smart than any of you); however, here’s my take:

    We’re taking all the wind. Someday there will be no wind. Somewhere, in the Himalayas there is some sort of mass depression being raged upon the those poor little llamas who want nothing more than to build their own windmills. But NO! There will be no wind left for them.

  7. When I stumbled across this story I thought it came from The Onion- sadly, I was wrong.

  8. BTW Lewd you should start a weekly post entitled “Giant Douche of the Week.” If you would allow me the honor, I submit this overly gentle man for your review…

  9. TT, good call! Douche of the Week is a good idea…(twirls imaginary moustache). . .and plenty of candidates.

    Dying In Infamy: Honey you know I’m just always glad to hear from you, no matter what silliness you say—you could tell me the sun was rising in the west tomorrow and I would just want to hug you! But darlin’, you’re way off.

    One of my main points was that scientists spend a lot of money and time (not to mention the precious natural resources you’re worried about) coming up with “no shit” ideas. So humans use more energy than other species: what of it? Don’t you think that has something to do with our singular ability to invent organized systems like farming, transportation, and industry? Human beings are Earth’s dominant species, and the only one capable of doing such things; ergo, the only way to “even the playing field” would be to either kill most people and reduce our numbers (and therefore influence) or ask the human race to stop using our immense innovative abilities and go back down to the bottom of the food chain. Neither are remotely responsible or remotely humane choices.
    I’d love to see the apes and insects that farm: I think you saw that on the Disney Channel and thought it was the Discovery Channel.

    Another of my main points was that the Chicken Little eco-hysterics really just despise people for not being willing to live in tents and forego modernity entirely (but I notice Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio and the rest of y’all haven’t shown much willingness to give up your lifestyles). I fundamentally disagree with any philosophy that defines humans as a cancer on the planet–alas, we will never be even close to the same side on that. I’m sorry you feel that way about your fellow man.

    I’m certainly in favor of more responsible stewardship of our resources, and as an animal lover I’m always concerned about respecting animals and their habitats–within reason. But you’re a silly (although adorable) goose if you think that farms in Arkansas and Oklahoma are forcing animals into extinction. There is not a shred of evidence for that, and besides. Animals are hunted out of existence and sometimes go extinct because they refuse to breed (the panda bear is on the cusp for this reason), but the animal world is not imperiled by human agriculture and forestry (which does indeed involve conservation and the constant re-planting of forests).

    It’s always helpful to keep one’s eye on the ball: in this case, the topic at hand was solar energy and the idiot “experts” who will stop at nothing—facts, reality, whatever—to stop human progress in the name of their secular religion, Global Warming. Ironically, their chosen battlefield in this particular study is the sun, which is the very source of our planet’s climate and life, and whose power and fluctuations is beyond us entirely.

  10. Oh, and hey Jim! Good to see you back!

  11. I’d love to see the apes and insects that farm: I think you saw that on the Disney Channel and thought it was the Discovery Channel.

    ::Snort of laughter:: Babe, I miss you. 🙂

  12. Theo, I so wish you were down here in the Big Dirty with me! But I know we’ll have one of our 5-hour confabs soon. Or at least I hope. 🙂

    By the way, that really was my friend posting under my name the other day….Jess, in from Chicago. Theo, you guys would love each other! I was wishing you were there!

  13. I will be, soon enough. Mark your calendar. 🙂

    You’ve mentioned Jess. I very much want to meet her. 🙂

  14. I’d love to see the apes and insects that farm: I think you saw that on the Disney Channel and thought it was the Discovery Channel.

    I realize it’s merely beating a dead horse, but here is the link for the insect farmers. I can’t seem to find a link for the apes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: