Nuke the Whales

Check this out.
source: The American Interest

Want to Go Green? Lose the Pet
Think green or the dog gets it.  No, wait. Think green and the dog gets it.
 No, wait.  I don't get it.

Greens are always on the lookout for new ways to tell people how to live sustainably, and now they’ve recently alighted on a new bit of officious instruction: get rid of your resource-hogging pets. As an op-ed in the Guardian argues, man’s best friend is mother earth’s enemy:
Two German Shepherds use more resources just for their annual food needs than the average Bangladeshi uses each year in total. And while pet owners may disagree that Bangladeshis have more right to exist than their precious Schnookums, the truth is that pets serve little more societal purpose than keeping us company in an increasingly individualistic and socially isolated consumer society. [...]
[O]ur pet population consumes a huge amount of resources which, in our climate constrained reality, are no longer available. With a human population of 7.2 billion and a dog and cat population now in the hundreds of millions (it’s estimated at 179m in the US alone), the Earth cannot sustain these populations – especially as a growing percentage of pets live their lives as ravenous consumers.
The author of that article writes that, in a world with more social capital, many wouldn’t feel the need for pets in the first place. He goes so far as to suggest that there’s an opportunity cost in spending time with one’s pets, namely that you spend less time with your fellow man, and your community therefore suffers. Cue the inevitable noisy outcry from devoted pet owners. Sure, it’s silly, but this kind of advice points to a stubborn flaw in the modern green movement.
Telling people not to own pets is like telling people not to eat meat: it riles the layperson up, and triggers a knee-jerk reaction not just against the specific issue the environmentalist may be advocating for, but for the green movement in general. Sure, our collective impact on the environment would be a lot less if we all went herbivore, or gave up our pet dogs for pet rocks, but that’s never going to happen. And this is worse than a lost cause—it backfires on greens, undermining both their credibility as policy advocates and as rational observers of the human condition. It wastes political capital at a time when the movement’s reservoirs are running dangerously low. We need—and the world deserves—much smarter green thinking than what we’ve got.

Liberals can’t help but contradict themselves, and the further toward the left they are, the more frequent and the outrageous their contradictions are.  

We shouldn’t have cars, we shouldn’t have comfortable homes, we shouldn’t eat tasty food, and now... the leftist weenies say we shouldn’t have pets...  because they use up too many resources or something.

They say that two large dogs uses more resources than the average Bangladeshi uses.  So what?  Who wants a Bangladeshi running around their yard?  (They’re very messy and can be mean if not neutered.  I also heard that they like to chew on things.)

If we are going to start discouraging the existence of things just because of the amount of resources they consume, I’d think that fat chicks would be a much higher priority than dogs.  If they’re going to suggest eliminating things based on the amount of resources they use, then maybe we shouldn't be trying so hard to save all the endangered species that they tell us need to saved.  I bet tigers use more food resources than Bangladeshis do too.  (I think Bangladeshis are food resources for tigers.)

I think that whales also eat more than dogs.  Maybe we should get rid of them too.


  1. Tell ya what... Every dog I choose to keep I will shoot 2 leftists...And I like dogs. Leftards, eh, not so much.

    1. Have the dogs bite the leftists, and then, have the leftists put down. I put them down here, all the time.

  2. Jesse, is that two in a year, a month or what time period?

  3. Hey Neil;

    This ties is with the ultimate greenie goal; No people period.....Since people are a virus to "mother gaia" we should be eliminated. except for them since they can live in harmony with nature......or sone crap along that line.

    1. Yes, but in this case, they allude to the notion that we are bring selfish having dogs because the poor Bangladeshis would love to have that dog food themselves.You would think that the people who always put animals first would choose the dogs but not in this case. It all goes to prove what Rush said a long time ago - that few on the left really care about the causes they claim to care about. They just want to bring about the destruction of this country and strip us of everything we enjoy.

  4. "Who wants a Bangladeshi running around their yard? (They’re very messy and can be mean if not neutered. I also heard that they like to chew on things.)"

    I just spewed sweet tea out my nose.... God that's funny!