Monday, December 22, 2008
Above is the aptly named “Hockey Stick” graph. It came out in the mid-90s in favor of the "Humans are hurting the planet" theories. As you can see in the graph, the planet was cooling from about the year 1000 AD (none of that BCE/CE crap here) to 1907 AD, which is convenient for environmentally friendly organizations touting the evils of automobiles and mankind in general.
These groups often say that humans are responsible for all of the warming effects we have seen in the last century. But I say, why stop assigning blame there? As far as I can tell, humans are responsible for everything that has happened to this planet, since, I don’t know, the birth of humanity. Ever since man decided to stop picking his nose and start picking up rocks, we have had an impact on this planet for better or worse.
But instead of blaming Homo sapiens for every conceivable problem (although there are still some groups that do) most will just find one thing they don’t like and say that humans are the reason it sucks. Not enough wolverines in northern California? Humans killed ‘em. Too much smog in Beijing? Humans did that. Mexico City is sinking into a lake bed? Bad human engineering. But why don’t lobbyists ever combine all these different things that humans caused, and blame humans for everything? Because they too are human, and realize that they would get caught in the blame. The lamenters drive in gasoline-powered vehicles, too.
So instead they come up with all of these short-sighted plans that to reduce carbon emissions or minimize plastic bag waste. I prefer to think on the long term, and have drawn up a the beginnings of a plan to help save the Earth.
THE PLAN - Euthanize the elderly
This plan makes sense in a couple of ways, besides the fact that some of the more senile recipients would think they were going in for treatments to become younger. Of course I understand there may be some critics out there who scream, “That’s so inhumane! How can you say we should kill the elderly?!” But I have a few responses to them:
First, old people tend to drive slower, resulting in longer drive times for themselves. However, everyone stuck behind said old person who is unable to pass will also have a longer drive time. A longer commute and more stop-and-go traffic results in increased fuel consumption, which results in more demand for oil, which drives up the price of oil, which means more wells get drilled, which hurts the environment.
Second, old people typically require specialized diets. While most normal (young) people are able to eat whatever and whenever they want, old people have to have their food mashed, liquefied, or in pill form, and they have to have someone prepare it, feed it, or shove it up their rectum for them. This means that whenever an old person wants to eat, increased man hours must be spent and additional energy consumption must go into the process, which requires more food to replace the used energy, which means more forests need to be cleared to allow for the growth of foodstuffs, which eliminates the earth’s natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide, which hurts the environment.
Third, old people are known to complain... a lot. Not only does this result in increased stress levels in those they complain to, but it most likely slows down the cogs of administration as old people clog the channels with their complaining. When more old people complain, less work actually gets done, which means people have to stay at the office longer, resulting in generators running longer, requiring more energy and adding more light pollution to the landscape.
Now as I said before, this is just a proposal. I have no idea what the minimum age should be for such a program; that is something best left to the number crunchers to decide. I doubt that such a program could become a universal overnight, as some cultures have a certain respect for the elderly (not America). Lastly, we operate within a land governed by laws, so by no means should this program commence without some sort of authortative sanction.