This is not a description of a primitive tribe living in some remote jungle (excuse me, rain forest). It is not an account of people clad in animal skins, cutting the throats of captives in front of crude stone idols. No, it is a description of “educated” people living in America and Western Europe. It is an account of people in modern clothes, but still causing other people to die in order to placate their gods.
The false gods are environmentalism and leftism.
DDT was banned in the 1970s because it probably caused the shells of birds’ eggs to weaken. Obviously, we would not want our national emblem, the bald eagle, to become extinct. Obviously, we want to “save the planet.”
But DDT was an effective insecticide, especially for malarial mosquitoes. Now every year, 1 to 2 million people − many of them African children and pregnant women − die of malaria. Tens of millions of people died needlessly since DDT was banned.
DDT substitutes are more expensive and must be sprayed more often. If lobbyists for chemical companies had pushed for banning DDT, the media would have screamed that they were putting profits above the lives of black children. But because environmentalists did the lobbying, the media are silent. If putting an agenda above human life is wrong in one case, why is it right in the other? Doesn’t the “planet” we want to save include black children?
At the same time, swamps were renamed “wetlands,” and draining them was restricted. The most effective agent against malarial mosquitoes was banned, while destroying their breeding places was hampered.
West Nile virus causes an untreatable infection of the brain. It is also transmitted by mosquitoes. Since 1999 it has been spreading across the U.S. In 2015 there were 2016 cases and 119 deaths. Ironically, West Nile virus kills millions of birds. Are more birds dying of West Nile than were saved by banning DDT? Who knows? Who even cares?
And now we have Zika virus spreading from South America northwards. The severe birth defects caused by Zika infection are frequently covered in the media. But what is rarely mentioned? DDT. Current insecticides are only partially effective against the mosquitos that carry Zika. No vaccine? No treatment? Deformed, mentally retarded children? No matter. DDT isn’t “green.” See what I mean about human sacrifice? Even child sacrifice?
Banning large cars and SUVs.
Environmentalists insist that we must “save the earth” from global warming. To do so, we must drive smaller cars − if we are allowed to drive any cars. But insurance data show that those in smaller cars are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a crash.
Yet these data are rarely mentioned in “consumer” magazines or the media. They report only laboratory crash data, which seem to show that small cars are as safe as large ones. But when you crash a car into a barrier, you in effect crash it into itself. So a small car may seem to do as well as a large one.
But in real life, the average vehicle weighs over 4000 pounds, not counting large trucks. One does not need a Ph.D. in physics to visualize what happens when a 4000-pound vehicle collides with a 2500-pound vehicle. Martial arts have weight classes, but vehicles must face a free-for-all.
To further confuse consumers, large cars were renamed “very large,” intermediate cars were renamed “large,” compacts were renamed “midsize,” and subcompacts were renamed “small.”
Thousands of deaths could have been prevented if people had been in larger vehicles. Now, for the first time in decades, the vehicle death rate has stopped falling and is rising. But you will not see these figures in “consumer” magazines. Fuel economy trumps human lives every time. Human lives aren’t “green.”
Prof. Gary Kleck showed that guns are used much more often to thwart crimes than to commit them. Yet you’d never know it from the media. Dr. John Lott found that of 280 news stories, only four mentioned that those who stopped the attack were armed. One leading newspaper said that they “tackled” the killer, and another that they “helped subdue” him.
Lott also showed that in states where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns, violent crimes decreased. Overly restrictive gun laws cost lives. But activists learned nothing from these experiments. Instead of reducing the violent crime rate, which is easily measured, gun-ban activists in Britain now assert that their real objective was reducing the “gun culture,” which can’t be defined, much less measured. Therefore, gun control laws can’t be shown to have failed.
An idea that can’t be disproved by any available evidence is an irrational belief, not a logical conclusion.
Recall the struggle to arm pilots after 9/11. We trust pilots to fly planes loaded with passengers, but not to carry guns, though many pilots are retired or reserve military officers. We babble about the risk of a stray bullet injuring a passenger or damaging the plane. But then, in a colossal contradiction, we scramble jet fighters to shoot the plane down if necessary.
When it suits their agenda, environmentalists and leftists are extremely solicitous of human life. They oppose capital punishment of convicted murderers, because of the small chance that an innocent person may be executed. They oppose the war on terrorism, because − as in any war − civilians may be killed.
If it will “save just one life,” they are for reducing pesticide residues in food below the already minute levels. If it will “save just one child,” they are for banning guns completely.
Yet when it comes to safer cars; preventing malaria, West Nile disease, or Zika infection; or defense of self and family; suddenly this concern for human life goes out the window. The activists never say that larger cars should be built, that DDT should be reintroduced, or that gun ownership should be encouraged − “if it will save just one life.” Another glaring contradiction goes unnoticed.
We tried to make airliners peanut-free zones to avoid allergy, and gun-free zones to avoid anxiety. We neglected to make them terrorist-free zones, and almost 3000 died horribly on 9/11. But on the bright side, they died free of peanut allergy, and free of anxiety over armed pilots.
In an effort to “save just one life,” we lost 3000 lives.
Is this an exaggeration? How many murder victims − especially women and minorities − die each year because of overly restrictive gun laws? How many people − especially Africans − die each year of malaria or encephalitis because of overly restrictive environmental laws? How many people die each year because they were persuaded to drive small cars?
How many thousands die each year to “save just one life”? In an effort to avoid all risks, we ignore the worst risks. With guns, large vehicles, pesticides, and many other agendas, the process has all the characteristics of fanaticism:
● Overstate the possible benefits of your agenda.
● Omit the foreseeable harmful effects.
● When the good effects don’t materialize, never admit failure − redouble your efforts.
● When harmful effects appear, ignore them.
● Never answer criticism.
● Instead attack critics for wanting to “destroy the earth,” “pollute the planet,” “cause Wild West shootouts,” or whatever.
So why are we surprised when ObamaCare includes rationing health care for the elderly and the disabled? Why are we shocked when government officials plan to harvest organs for transplantation from patients who are not dead? We tolerate a million abortions a year, most done for reasons other than health of the mother. What did we expect? Did we think that cheapening human life and making it less important than some agenda would never affect us?
We rightly condemn religious fanatics, who murder thousands in the Middle East, Africa, and now Europe and America. But we should also beware of secular fanatics, who believe that human lives must be sacrificed to appease their gods of environmentalism and leftism.
If gods demand human sacrifice, they are false and deserve contempt, not worship.
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.