Ecocide is everywhere you look. Even if you’re a big fan of nature, watching beautiful animals on television on television shows that encourage conservation contributes to killing those animals and, eventually, ourselves.
We Are All Connected
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
6 Comments. Leave new
So very true … but what a strained example. For example any data on the % energy (viewing time/”share”/etc) spent on “nature” programming as compared to the vast amount of pure, unadulterated, purposefully mind-numbing trash?
Clearly there would be no nature programming without the questionably useful TV, so focus on the real problem, not the marginally contradictory subset.
I had a very similar thought. “Wow, Ted’s really straining at a gnat here.” However, I want to throw a consideration into the mix. TV serves as a misdirect. People watch things they want to watch or, less frequently, things they feel they “really ought to.” So, a lot more programs show us animals frolicking in open fields versus, say, hunters clubbing baby seals. In fact, it’s much harder to get “negative” stuff on the tube because, hey, no one wants a bad trip from the drugs they bought off that guy in Washington Park.
A similar effect can be seen, ecocide wise, in today’s NYTimes. The third paragraph of the latest boosterism about the Inflation Reduction Act: “The legislation would pour more than $370 billion into climate and energy programs aimed at helping the United States cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. … as well as fulfill a long-held Democratic goal to lower the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to directly negotiate prices and capping the annual out-of-pocket cost for recipients at $2,000.”
Welp, problem solved. 40% of the levels from almost 20 years ago? That sure sounds like it’s enough. And drugs are going to get cheaper? Well, that’s enough of fighting for that, I guess. What? I have no idea what the levels were 20 years ago, I have no idea of whether 40% means anything at all? What? Only 10 drugs, and it won’t start until 2024?
What’s on TV?
The problem with having a Federal Government that has failed is that it fails all of us no matter how well we do ourselves.
The Pandemic is just one example of where if the same “rules” don’t apply to everyone, everyone suffers.
California has done a remarkable job over the last few decades cleaning up its own power generation. California is connected to the same power grid as every other state. When California has power to spare, every other state gets the benefit of California’s work. When California needs more power we get the disasters of other states coal & oil power production.
When are we going to operate as a single nation?
When are we going to deal with our problems TOGETHER?
To quote your friend Matt: “Yet you participate in society. Curious.”
I registered an account for one sole reason, and that’s to comment that nuclear cooling towers are releasing steam, not smoke. In fact, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest green energy sources and is far, far safer than use and production of fossil fuels. I think painting these both in the same light is a bit unfair.
I’m a bit late on this one, but, okay. A good point. Now, please, could we get the spin on how super-safe all that radioactive waste (which will be lethal for so long that we already are admitting openly that we have no way of warning people 3,000, or 10,000 years forward about it because we can’t come up with any technology that will last long enough to transmit a message). That it’s clean at one end isn’t a good excuse for a baby, it’s not one for the nukes industry.