timeimmortal

Hat tip to SoCon for this graphic:

I’ve never understood this.

People — especially enlightened, progressive sorts — obses over things like genetically-modified foods and the quantity of hormones and chemicals in things like milk or chicken meat. And then, if they are female, they get up in the morning and take yet another estrogen-laced pill that alters the normal hormone levels in their own body.

What a strange society we are. We demand that our Food be organic and we’re encouraged to opt for re-useable grocery bags that don’t put as much of a strain on our environment or our landfills. But then when it comes to sex, we insist on altered hormone levels in the female body and the use of “one time” latex sheaths. Plastic and hormones aren’t good enough for the chicken breast we bring home for dinner, but are mandatory for the romantic interlude that follows.

Interesting commentary from the Anchoress:

…thanks to the noble environmentalists, we’re not allowed to drill for the huge beds of oil we own; because we’re not allowed to drill and refine our own resources, our heating and fuel bills are skyrocketing, our grocery bills are rising and - most troublingly - we may be facing Food shortages…and still mucking up Gaia, to boot.

Doesn’t sound so noble to me. And so much for our “oilman” president freeing us from dependence on other countries. He did that about as well as Bill Clinton before him.

…

Yeah, it’s bad policy. But I’m wondering if it is also immoral?

I’m sure that sounds extreme, and I don’t mean to. It also sounds very Roman Catholic, but I can’t help that; it seems to me that there is a morality question here — is it ever right to burn food for energy when people are hungry?

Taking a line through the idea of things being used for the purposes intended, one might call burning for food both “disordered” and (when doing so threatens humanity) “intrinsically evil.”

It’s certainly not news anymore to observe that food costs world-wide are rising. Even Wal-Mart is beginning to ration sales of rice (although their per-customer limit is still an indefensible 200 pounds!). Now, the world food market will respond in the way it always does — it will find new food production options, such as utilizing both GMO and organic options. Farmers will not leave as much of their land fallow in a year. Perhaps governments will step in, in some cases, to prevent urban growth from consuming areas of arable land. There are numerous corrective pressures, in other words, that will exert themselves. And were the only issue that of balancing food production against population growth, those pressures would be sufficient.

But now we add in the craze over biofuels, and suddenly one is left to wonder. If so much corn and rice is being used up to produce an alternative fuel source for Westerners — and then at the expense of the well-being and lives of people in the Third World (who cannot absorb the rising cost of food at all, unlike most people in North America and Europe) — can the use of biofuels be called moral? One tends not to think so. Indeed, when one factors in the observation that biofuels, in addition to causing massive shortages in stocks of staple foods (grains, specifically), are also more polluting to refine than is crude oil, the use of ethanol and other “bio” alternatives at the pump becomes almost indefensible.

John C. Wright has further commentary on the issue, and he doesn’t mince words — in his view, current biofuel schemes are staggeringly immoral, and can only be ruinous.

You know what I don’t get? Is the number of women who are extremely careful about what they eat, who spend small fortunes on organic, “chemical-free” Food and whatnot (as though all chemicals were bad — we’d sure look funny without H2O), but who don’t hesitate one-third of a second before pumping their bodies full of hormones.

It would seem to me that progressives love them their organic foods. And the ones that aren’t vegetarian get all hot and bothered over the idea of milk, chicken, and beef that haven’t been pumped full of various hormones. And yet, as the ladies at PWPL note, most of the women within that category think nothing but the best about pumping themselves full of hormones, ostensibly in the cause of being “liberated” (from what, exactly…the normal function of the female body?).

My wife has every right to rail against hormone-laden milk and meat products, because she isn’t on the pill. Anyone who likewise is not on the pill also retains that same right. People who willingly inject themselves with all manner of hormones with the intent to augment and offset the natural hormonal concentrations in their own body have no business whatsoever complaining about any sort of hormone content or biological modification in the food that they eat.

David Warren spotlights a trend that I’d suspected might just be the case after all — that production of “environmentally friendly” biofuels not only results in increased carbon emissions* (since the process of refining various grains into vehicle-ready fuel requires many processing stages, all of which require fossil fuels to be burned in order to drive the various processes — by comparison, refining crude oil into petrol is a fairly clean and efficient process), but that it drives up the price of food globally, especially in already impoverished nations.

And while folks like me, living and working in Canada, might be able to absorb a twofold or threefold increase in the cost of food, people living in Third World nations would be crushed by similar increases. And here’s the kicker: such increases aren’t just possible or likely. They are already happening.

Even in the economically advanced West, the rise in Food prices has become noticeable. My observant reader will find plenty of signs in his local supermarket, where the price of dairy products is leading an advance that must necessarily spread — for wholesale prices are outstripping retail prices in food across the board. The secondary effect of the monetary inflation this re-ignites is in itself beginning to cause economic havoc.

But we, who spend (in North America) less than 15 percent of our income on food, can nevertheless survive if that proportion doubles or triples.

It is in the poorest countries of the world, where people often spend more than half their income obtaining food, that a doubling or tripling of prices is fatal. And note, the supply of food does not need to halve, in order to double prices. It only has to fall, consistently, a little behind demand.

Please don’t take my word for this. The United Nations’ World Food Programme and various other collectivist agencies are already becoming eloquent on the subject. In a statement to the European Parliament last week, the executive director of the WFP explained that their own cost of obtaining food for distribution to the world’s hungry had risen by 40 percent since last June. They are not predicting a catastrophe. They are experiencing one.

environmentalism seems to have become just one more playground for wealthy Westerners, a way we can wring our hands and make ourselves feel good for having “done something,” the same as when we banned DDT. And yet we do not, by our actions, achieve any meaningful positive environmental impact. Indeed, the only impact we manage to achieve is that, in our selfish desire to be “green,” we further impoverish and condemn to a most terrible fate thousands or millions of people living in poorer nations. And in the end, our selfishness backfires on us as well — the same “green” fuels we might desire to use in our cars are, in fact, very difficult to produce, and the production processes far more polluting than those used to refine crude oil into petrol.

But then, that pollution happens elsewhere, and not in our back yards or on the roads upon which we drive. We do not see it, and so can safely pretend it does not exist.