Re: a few minor eco reservations

I trust that you don't have children, as I can't believe anyone that has
would be so uncaring about what we leave for future generations.


<katebelgique@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123892478.075428.149880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I wish the environmentalist busybodies would leave the rest of us
alone. For the first time in the history of mankind ordinary people
have the chance of a good life. We have the glorious freedom to travel
where we like when we like. We have good quality food available in germ
proof containers. We have chemicals that kill the bugs on our crops and
keep our livestock healthy. Our rubbish and sewage is taken away for us
and buried or burnt or pumped out to sea instead of lying around
causing disease. All the glorious life-enhancing benefits bestowed upon
us by science and man's ingenuity would be taken from us if the
environmentalists had their wacky way. I wish the environ-mental-cases
could be sent back in time to an era when we really had to grovel about
in *** half the time - that might teach them not to muck up the
brilliant things we have now. Of course a lot of them are anti-science
and anti-car as a matter of principle. They have romantic and totally
unrealistic visions of a pre-science age, with lambs gambolling in the
meadows and happy bucolic peasants living stress-free lives. What they
forget is that there were no agrichemicals, so the lambs would be
plagued with pests and the peasants would be half-starved.

Like a lot of other good or at least moderately good causes (gender
equality, anti-racism, you name it) the environmental cause is spoilt
by the vociferous lunatic fringe. They proselytise and preach and
generally annoy normal people, with the result that their cause, which
has probably got a bit of good in it, gets ignored. Having just
re-read that I'm worried that you'll think that I rank
environmentalism as being as important as gender equality or
anti-racism. No way! There's a mile of difference.

All my ancestors had to scrimp and struggle. I'm a member of the
first generation to live in the land of plenty, and I'll be damned if
a few nutters are going to take that away from me. If I want to climb
into my car and drive to Land's End or sit at home burning
electricity I'm going to do it. The environmentalists talk about
saving the planet but as far as I'm concerned the planet and
everything on it is humanity's property and it's here to be used.
Let's exploit what we've got and have a damned good time.

If you don't agree ask yourself two questions. Firstly, were you born
after 1985? If so you have been indoctrinated with the 'eco'
message all your life. You watched it on Blue Peter and you were even
taught it at school in the guise of normal lessons. So are you sure
that you are in possession of the facts, or could you just possibly be
the victim of a little light brainwashing? Secondly, if you had the
make a personal and totally secret choice between a comfortable life
for yourself now or some vague unproven benefit for those who will
live a century from now, what would you do? Come on now, be honest.
Look into your soul and ask yourself if you really want to live on
lentils and cycle to work in the rain for the rest of your life. Did
the Victorians mooch around fretting about our welfare? I don't think
so. No-one ever before in history has worried about what's going to
happen in a hundred years time, so why should we cripple our incomes
and our lifestyles for that reason? In any case, what we do now isn't
going to have any significant effect in 2105. Look at what happened
from the start of the industrial revolution until, say 1950. The
factories belched out smoke for 150 years and what effect does that
smoke have on us, now? Zilch! Zero! If there'd been no industrial
production whatsoever until 1950 the environment today would be exactly
the same as it really is.

It's been suggested by the eco nutters that we should buy second hand
furniture to save raw materials and energy. I don't think so, I
really don't. I don't work my bollocks off to come home and sit on
someone else's cast off flea menagerie, thank you very much. And turn
my thermostat down? Not likely! We live in a country that's too cold
most of the time, and as an outdoor worker I like to be nice and cosy
when I get home. I have no intention of shivering with cold when I get
out of the shower, and I like to sit around at home in a tee-shirt, not
dress up like Scott of the Antarctic. In my youth we used to sleep with
our hands and heads under the blankets because of the cold, busting for
the loo but unwilling to make the freezing trip. I've had my share of
that, and as long as I've got the money coming in to pay for fuel
I'm not going to do it again. We used to spend every winter Friday in
a steamy hell thanks to the wet washing hanging up in the house. Now
the eco fanatics want us to throw away our tumble dryers!

There seems to be a basic defect in the psychological makeup of these
rabid environmentalists and it turns them into incorrigible killjoys.
There's considerable overlap between the environmental camp and the
anti-car camp, and I'm not surprised, because the same basic instinct
lies behind both. They see someone enjoying something so they want to
get it stopped, and if they can't think of a good reason they'll
happily accept a bad one, or no reason at all come to that. It reminds
me of the 17th century Puritans, except those guys had nothing on this
lot for sheer po-faced mardy hypocrisy.

You might also notice the overlap between the environmentalists and
those who nag the rest of us when we are not quite politically correct
enough for their liking. It's another basic instinct taking over,
this time the one that gives them an orgasm whenever they get a chance
to tell us that we're morally deficient. It's the 'holier than
thou' psychological defect this time. Yes, I know you're a lot more
holy than me pal, and do I care? They look down their noses at us and
revel in their moral superiority. If you can say something that offends
them on both fronts (like for instance suggesting in the same breath
that we should all take up jet skiing and that all the foreign hospital
doctors should be made to learn good English) you can see them almost
explode with self-righteous indignation. Except they wouldn't allow
themselves to explode of course because of the pollution.

The flawed logic of the environmentalist would if unchecked wreck your
life for half-baked pseudo-reasons without considering for a minute
the balance between any possible environmental harm and the proven
benefit to mankind of whatever it is he's trying to ban. Here's an
example, and it's one that gets right up my nose. I can't get my
favourite hay fever inhaler any more because the propellant would
(allegedly) damage the ozone layer. That was the only one that worked
for me, so now I have to spend weeks coughing and sneezing, driving
erratically and working inefficiently, just for the sake of not
releasing about half a cc of gas into the air once every twelve months.
And just in case they're right for once, and my hay fever cure
actually is going to increase global warming, well, isn't that a good
thing really? Britain is too damned cold for most of the time. I reckon
five degrees of global warming would be pretty good. At least we'd be
able turn our thermostats down and please the environmentalists.

It's time the sane majority rose up against the crackpot minority. We
don't need to be told how to live, how to work, what to eat, what to
drink, and what to think. And personally don't want to wipe my arse
on a dock leaf. So next time some miserable busybody tries to interfere
with your life give him a lift in your gas guzzler to the nearest
landfill and push the bugger in.

Jeremy



.