What’s the Ecologist up to these Days?

The ecologist magazine is one of the oldest, most popular, and most respected, environmental magazines in the country. But the throat-slitting, blood-sucking, meat eating, fur-loving, vivisection supporting, members of the ecologist seem to be stuck in the environmentalism of the 1970s when the chemical industry was blamed for causing the most environmental damage. It’s time to evaluate where the ecologist is going.

Nothing to say about the Car.

At the beginning of the 1990s i sent an article to the ecologist about the damage cars were inflicting on the Earth’s life support system. It was returned with the comment that they wouldn’t publish it because, "It wasn’t scientific." By that time the ecologist had been published for nigh-on twenty years and, as far as i know, hadn’t included a single article condemning the car. As anti-car protests spread around the country, activists began to wonder why the ecologist was still keeping quiet about the car. Eventually one of the editors broke ranks and admitted their failure. It even started publishing a campaign notice board to publicize anti-car demos.

Ecologist Blames the Chemical Industry for Bse.

One the major surprises of the bse debacle (which, so far, has entailed the mass murder of millions of Cattle and 48 oomans) was that the ecologist blamed the spread of the disease on the chemical industry rather than feed manufacturers; pharmers, who sold for ooman consumption thousands of Animals at public auctions which were obviously afflicted with bse; and the nfu, who employed bogus science to suggest that bse was no threat to ooman health. The editors of the ecologist are supergreens - people who learnt their environmentalism in the 1960s and 1970s and who have difficulty in coming to terms with more recent, and perhaps, more threatening, environmental problems such as global burning. Over the last couple of decades, the ecologist has focused its criticisms mainly on the chemical industry so it was hardly surprising it should suspect the chemical industry was responsible for bse. Some members of the ecologist are great supporters of organic farming so the last thing they wanted to do was to blame conventional pharmers when they hoped to convert these right wing, ecocidal, mass murderers, to organic farming.

Support for Vivisection.

The ecologist supports vivisection. Its antipathy towards multi-national chemical corporations is such that it is willing to condone Animal experiments in order to undermine the chemical industry. It uses evidence from Animal experiments to suggest how dangerous chemicals are to oomans, and thus how evil the chemical industry is, even though Animal experiments do not indicate anything about the impacts that chemicals have on oomans - surely the bse tragedy is only the latest example of this sort of nonsense when Animal experiments were used to prove that bse was not a threat to ooman health.

One contributor to the ecologist, alison white, cited a number of conclusions derived from Animal experiments and suggested they were relevant to oomans, "A number of laboratory studies have shown not surprisingly that animals are at greater risk of developing cancer if exposure began in infancy rather than later in life."; "Young rats are more susceptible than adults to the lethal effects of 15 out of 16 organophosphate insecticides."; "Hundreds of studies have shown that many pesticides adversely affect the immune system in Animals and render them more susceptible to disease, and yet pesticides generally are still not required to be tested for immune-system suppression before they are put on the market."; "One study in italy .. found that a mixture of 15 pesticides impaired liver function and induced free-radical damage of dna at low doses in Rats."

She points out some of the absurdities involved in Animal experiments but complains .. "most pesticides in current use have not been properly tested." without clarifying what sort of tests she believes would be helpful. At least richard north pointed out in his article that, "Animal tests cannot predict safety for humans with any degree of confidence."

Support for Over-population.

Since 1970, the first Earth day, the ooman population has soared from 4 billion to nearly 6 billion. The ecologist doesn’t believe these additional eco-nazis are responsible for any ecological damage. One of the reasons for this unwillingness to blame over-population for ecological devastation is because one of its editors has sired five offspring.

The Ecologist’s ProMeat article.

Perhaps one of the most shocking developments in the regression of the ecologist was its publication of a pro-meat article. There are carnivores who are capable of presenting interesting arguments to support their case but stephen byrnes’s article was so full of extremist nonsense it was surprising the ecologist could publish his article given the magazine’s supposedly impeccable scientific credentials. Brynes came over as a right wing zombie who denies all environmental threats from bse, to stratospheric ozone depletion, global burning, etc.

Byrnes argued, "The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth’s resources, but that commercial farming methods do." He believes that modern livestock pharming causes ecological devastation whilst tribal carnivorism and organic farming do not. This is not correct. Over the last few millennia, organic pharming has devastated huge areas of land. In addition, the reintroduction of organic farming would require a far more extensive area of land than is currently being used by intensive livestock pharming if it attempted to generate current levels of meat and dairy products. This would lead to a vast increase in geophysiological damage.

Given byrnes’s antipathy towards modern livestock pharming, it might have been suspected he would also condemn modern pharming for damaging ooman health. On the contrary, he dismisses vegans’ claims that meat eaters have higher rates of heart and kidney disease, cancer, obesity and osteoporosis, "Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts." He tries to prove his point by using ‘evidence’ from tribalism. He argues that since tribalists are healthy after eating large quantities of meat on a regular basis (he doesn’t mention the source of these statistics) then the 600 million consumers in the over-industrialized world can’t be damaging their health by eating meat. Meat consumption has had no effect on the health of modern consumers. It has to be suggested that it seems unimaginable that the gluttonous, meat eating extravaganza that has occurred in the over-industrialized world since the second world war, in which hundreds of millions of people have eaten vast quantities of fatty, hormone/antibiotic infected meat, has had no impact on ooman health. Byrnes thus holds an unusual position: he condemns the intensive livestock pharming for causing ecological damage whilst defending its contribution to ooman health.

Byrnes believes the premature deaths of millions of obese consumers is caused not by eating refined sugar and vegetable oil rather than meat/dairy products, "Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. .. modern day researchers fail to take into account dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of refined sugar and vegetable oil consumption get mixed up with animal fat consumption." Doubtlessly refined sugar and refined vegetable oil are bad for ooman health but to believe they are more lethal than fatty drug-infected meat/dairy products is difficult to believe. Ironically the phrase "get mixed up with" is not a figure of speech since large quantities of sugar are added to processed meat. Is it just a coincidence, then, that fat faced, fat-arsed consumers look exactly like the obscenely fattened Animals they eat? The only difference between the herds of Cattle and the herds of obese livestock bipeds moving across the united states is that the former walk to their destinations whilst the latter can manage it only in four wheeled hearses.

Byrnes sounds like an american denialist - people who deny a proposition just because they don’t like it. Since the last world war there has been the most enormous expansion of the livestock industry. Vast stretches of Forest around the world have been cleared to provide pastureland for millions of additional Cattle. On every high street in every town and city throughout the over-industrialized world there are now not just restaurants but mcshit fast food dispensers. However, despite this objective evidence of the vast expansion in the livestock industry, brynes argues, "It does not appear, then, that saturated fat consumption has gone up this century. What has gone up is consumption of margarine, lifeless, packaged ‘foods’, processed vegetable oils, pasteurized/homogenized milk and refined sugar. These are the more likely culprits in our modern epidemics of cancer and coronary heart disease." So, the livestock industry does have some blame for the epidemic of gluttonous diseases - pasteurized/homogenized milk - presumably in contrast to free range, organic, unpasteurized milk which is full of healthy bacteria.

Thereafter brynes slips right over the edge of reality by regurgitating crude carnivorous propaganda, "That vitamin b12 can only be obtained from animal products is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a ‘normal’ way of human eating. If those same people had lived just 100 years ago, when vitamin supplements were unavailable, they would have died."

After all this it shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that byrnes, like the ecologist, doesn’t believe that bse was spread by infected Animal feed. As far as he is concerned, Cattle couldn’t have contracted a disease as a consequence of being forced to become carnivores because they have always been carnivores, and thus have immunity from Animal diseases, "Bse is probably not caused by cows eating animal parts with their food, a practice which imitates nature, as cows eating fresh grass consume insect larvae and eggs."

Ecologist’s aren’t Geophysiologists.

The ecologist’s belief that carnivorism is not a threat to the Earth’s life support system distinguishes it from geophysiologists who believe the livestock industry is the biggest cause of geophysiological devastation and the prime cause of global burning. The exploitation of Animals has enabled oomans to colonize and then devastate all parts of the Earth, "The most important practical difference between Gaia and mainstream environmental policy is in its emphasis on the evils of agriculture over those of industry, since deforestation for the purpose of food cultivation is what most immediately threatens the tropical rainforests and the warm coastal seas that surround them."; "Getting rid of cattle is one of the most important Gaian steps of all." Even non-geophysiologists such a krause, bach & koomey point out that, "The greatest change in the terrestrial biospheric carbon reservoir occurs through human agricultural activity. This activity can be broadly defined as the transformation of forests into non-forests for pasture or crop production purposes." Carnivorism may be ecological but it ain’t geophysiological i.e. it destabilizes the Earth’s climate.

The ecologist promotes carnivorism because it supports tribalism. But tribal peoples are oomano-imperialists i.e. oomans who dominate other species. In other words, both the ecologist and tribal peoples support the philosophy of might is right. This means there is no difference between them and the nazis slaughter of jews. Ironically, jews complain about being shoved in ovens but, around the world, they’re doing the same to millions of Animals. The Animal exploitation industry is slaughtering billions of Animals every year. There has never been a time when oomans have slaughtered such vast numbers of Animals. It is time that oomans rose above such barbarism that makes the nazis look like good guys. That the ecologist has decided not to play any role in eradicating this barbarism shows just how irrelevant it has become both morally and geophysiologically.