The Livestock On The Streets

Recently I commented that Pepper, a gray tabby I adopted many months ago, has finally started acting like a cat again. The reason she was acting so different is that her previous human companions had betrayed her many times and for many years.

This reminds me that humanity had lost it's capacity for unconditional love and friendship with the advent of society. Our social structure has demanded we place not only conditions on everything, but also value and worth.

One thing caused this to happen, the cancer of religion. The delusion called god places conditions and value on it's favor and acceptance from the beginning, it is by doing this that leaders can guilt believers into giving them more "sacrifices."

Then children are indoctrinated into this notion that everything must be earned, even love. If something must be earned then it is conditional and has a social value, it can also be traded.

This has, ultimately, destroyed our specie's ability to comprehend what unconditional means, now we use that term incorrectly more than not. If you want to see unconditional love adopt a cat or dog from the Humane Society.

Even if they have been abused they will love the one who they live with once they adjust to their new location. Even if you strike one, causing pain, they will beg for your affection and attention, and they will be there when you are at your lowest.

Just thinking of harming an animal like that make my eyes tear up, it hurts me to think of them being hurt by my own species. We are not the only animals on the planet and it's time we learned what we have forgotten from the others before we destroy ourselves … and them.

Walking between shops and home I came to realize that humanity is nothing more than livestock, constantly breeding and then discarding the ones they don't like. If we were to love unconditionally this would be impossible, our species would slow it's breeding to protect everything from our own advances.

Many people think it's pollution itself that's the problem, they never want to admit it's because of how many humans there are. The amount of pollution per person is on par with other animals, pollution from one species is also a resource for another, as long as the other species has the same population …

Therein lies the problem, we have not only over populated, we are constantly destroying other species as well, playing as if we are privileged and smarter than the universe. We are, smarter, but we have not been around nearly as long.

The system we are part of is an ongoing set of chemical reactions that have equalized, balanced. We are disrupting this balance and then placing bandaids over the problems it's causing instead of doing the one simple thing we must do to survive: stop fucking.

Science Deniers - Pitiful Empty Creatures

One of the greatest tools we have created is the one we call science, as it benefits everyone, even those who deny it. Speaking on science deniers, the two most heinous and prolific ones are those who try to oppose evolution and climate change.

The problem is jot that they disagree with a notion mentioned by the people who research these things, it's that neither know what they are even opposing yet present their opposition as if it's a well thought out argument. The reality is that these so called arguments are less than laughable, they are an embarrassment to the entire animal kingdom that we are part of.

Now, there are some climate change supporters who are also completely clueless, but that is another topic. The climate change is not itself a crisis, but when the media mentions it they are neglecting the rest of what they are truly attempting, and failing, to report on.

The problem that climatologists have noticed is an erratic and unexplainable variation of the expected climate change. One which correlates to human population growth increases caused by industrialization.

In other words, after eliminating the impossible, the most probable cause is our species, no matter how much we deny it. Industrialization was a great thing, it has allowed us to live much longer before, but like all good things, we must be careful when using it and work to avoid problems caused by the benefits.

Typically correlation does not equal causation, this is why the climatologists are still making certain they have eliminated all possible causes before announcing one as being definitive. A fact both sides ignore.

Catastrophic climate change deniers are the easy one to address, the morons who deny evolution are more complex, and thus I will be unable to address every point in one post. Denying evolution happens is denying a fact, unless you can present a better word for "a change in allele frequencies within a population over generations."

The core problem with those who deny evolution is that none of them even know what evolution is and often describe some caricaturization fed to them by scammers out to make a profit on their stupidity and laziness. The vast majority will cite religion as an alternative, the religion they have been sold to them by atheists who have so little empathy that they are willing to take advantage of those who are too lazy to learn anything, most often we call these scammers preachers or priests.

A perfect example of such a scammer is Kent Hovind, he even has the police record to prove it. Go ahead, look it up, this article is going nowehere.

Evolution deniers will often ask for "missing links," and when they do you can rest assured that they know nothing about evolution or biology, and less about genetics than a high school student in any civilized country. Asking for punctuations in a spectrum where there are no inherent boundaries with which to define such is extremely dishonest, and precisely what these poor fools have been told to ask for because the scammers who are taking their money know you cannot provide what never existed.

This idea of links and punctuations in biology lead then to think evolution is some form of cartoonish morphing or some other nonsense that would actually challenge the all theories of biology, including evolution. This is another tactic used by the scammers we call priests, ask for something that would destroy a theory as proof of said theory as a means of ensuring that if said evidence were presented they could then point out that the theory was wrong because of it.

Another very common spoonfed tactic is to redefine words used by others so as to make them appear to contradict the facts. If this tactic is used it is certain you are dealing with a scammer themselves, keep them talking if it's on a public forum as eventually even the least intelligent person will begin to see the dishonesty of the scammer.

The truly sad fact that deniers illustrate is that scammers are correct, there is a fool born every second, a wise person born only once a month. Take pity on them, but do not expect much for they are really just insecure and lonely, and so they seek out the popular clubs to forget how hollow and empty their lives truly are.

Animal Rights Cannot Trump the Environment - So Called Sea Shepherds

There is a problem with Greenpeace that I don't like, they don't do enough to actually battle pollution. Recently though, I discovered another group I cannot stand, worse than Greenpeace, they call themselves Sea Shepherds.

Now, you may be asking what is wrong with them, like Greenpeace, they ignore the forest for the tree, forgetting that the very thing they are trying to save needs a clean environment to survive in. Unlike Greenpeace, "Sea Shepherds" also use the fight for animal rights to wage wars, yes, actually destroying ships at sea.

A ship in operation releases a ton of pollution, and companies are seeking alternatives to reduce this. A sunken ship releases even more pollution into the oceans for longer, and more steady, periods of time.

Any marine biologist can attest to this, a sunken ship also disrupts currents and alters delicate sea environs. So what these so called Sea Shepherds are doing is guaranteeing there is no future for the very animals they claim to be saving.

The idiocy does not stop there, they show no concern about the animals we have in jails for our entertainment either. Something many of us animal rights activists are fighting against, and have been battling for a very long time, and making progress on thanks to social media.

Yep, social media is causing more change than any act of violence has ever effected. The reason, overlooked by the terrorist type activists, is that businesses will do what earns a profit, even if it means buying more ships and defending themselves more violently. With social media we destroy the value of what they sell, forcing them to look into more sane products.

So the so called Sea Shepherds' claim that petitions from Greenpeace have no effect are not only baseless, but complete lies. Petitions, combined with social media campaigns, causes long lasting changes for the better. The old adage of "hit 'em where it hurts" illustrates this.

So I have essentially come to the conclusion that these so called Sea Shepherds merely want war, and that is something we do not need as a planet. Yes, as a planet.

The entire ecosystem is as important, not any one single species is necessary for the whole, but the whole is necessary for any individual species. This is why fighting for a better environment is more important than fighting for one species at this time, and why destroying the environment for one species is just plain evil.

There, I said it, the so called Sea Shepherds are evil to the core. Selfish and arrogant, thinking only of themselves and looking for an excuse to harm another animal just for the sake of looking cool.

This does not mean I endorse Greenpeace, but between the two, Greenpeace does some actual good.

Climate Change - A Debate That Misses The Point

I have heard the argument from both sides, I have also looked into the information as much as I can stand, climatology is a really boring subject to me. But so far only the real scientists have said anything that makes any real sense based on everything I have come to understand.

But what do the scientists say? They admit to not knowing the answer, of course, that's the most common answer you will get from a good scientist. When confronted by both sides of this particular debate, climatologists have given one consistent answer: let us finish the work before you do change anything.

Which is actually the best advice in almost any aspect of your life. You need all the facts about something before you can make an informed decision, even with all the facts you can still make the wrong decision but the facts decrease the chances of that decision causing more harm. So why the push from both sides for different actions? Well, money. Specifically people who want to dip their hands into your taxes and take however much they can grab.

If you know me, you know I love capitalism, but admit we do need social programs to keep society moving forward. So why should I care about companies trying to turn a profit? It's not the profit, it's how. Predatory policies that force you to purchase from specific companies is not capitalism, that is closer to communism. This is exactly what the lobbyists are supporting, attempting to make one company's products look like the best idea then outlaw all the competition.

This holds true for both sides though. The telltale sign is the lobbying itself, the quick soundbites that attempt to paint the opposition in a more horrible light without presenting any solid facts on the issue. So yes, again it's how our government works that is the real problem. The facts in this particular case are still showing no causal links, none, that can shed light on the matter.

Yes, we know that carbon can create a greenhouse effect, but life is made of carbon as well. Methane can also create a greenhouse effect, but this is a byproduct of life. As temperatures rise, many such gases also increase as a result of the rise in temperature, making it difficult to draw any solid causal links, you can't tell which is the horse, and which is the cart. This is just the beginning of the problems with both sides of the debate.

Trends, this is statistical information, are not set in stone, they are predictions, and rarely hold true. At best, a trend is used as a starting point for other predictions based on the numerical values of similar circumstances. This does not make their results fact, ever, at all, in any way. They are educated guesses at best. The entire debate started when these trends did not match the reality, which any scientist will tell you is pretty much expected to happen.

That basically means that the side screaming doom and gloom have based everything on something that was expected to be incorrect by the very people who actually do the scientific research. This is where it gets really messy though, because those opposing these people are just as wrong, and just as dangerous. If we act now, without knowing all the facts, we could actually cause a bigger problem, even cause our own extinction. So premature action can destroy us, that's one part missed often.

But action in the reverse is just as bad. For decades we have been working to keep our air clean, and sanely reducing our waste. As a species we have been looking into new technologies and possibilities, knowing our population will, inherently, produce waste we needed to balance our waste so that it would match that of a much smaller, more realistic, population than we actually have. Countermanding all that work would return us to the Dark Age level of sanitation and cleanliness, but on a more massive scale that would destroy us.

So what is the best solution? Business as usual. Neither side need be listened too, both are wrong, both are extremists crying for attention, an advantage for their pet products, and often just because their lives are so boring they have nothing better to do. Yes, companies across the globe have always been looking for better ways to do things, sometimes it's because they think it's what's right, other times because the right thing does improve the bottom line, but rarely do they do the right thing because the government told them to do it.

So yes, keep working toward a better future, but the direction we have been moving is the best for everyone still, we have no facts stating otherwise. Next time someone shows you one of those charts, on either side, ask them a very basic question: Are you a climatologist? If the answer is "no," then tell them their information is invalid.