Remember how we all thought the blessings of technology would banish the fog of superstition?
That was a superstition, too.
It begins to look more and more like fancy high-tech gizmos and deeply benighted superstition can not only co-exist, but even feed off one another. Yo, hey, this is an important discovery! Like, the more “science” you pour into people’s lives, the more superstitious twaddle they believe. Nobody expected that.
And so we have witch doctors advertising their services on the social media…
“Clone ’em, Dano!”
Say hey! Did you know there’s a Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival Team? And they’ve got a little science project, straight out of Jurassic Park, to fight imaginary Global Warming [trumpet fanfare]–by bringing back the woolly mammoth! (https://www.livescience.com/62569-mammoth-elephant-hybrid-help-climate.html)
The project director flat-out denies they have any interest in doing what was done in the Jurassic Park movies, and then describes what they’re gonna do, which is exactly what they did in Jurassic Park and its sequels. They don’t want the whole mammoth: just the bits that resist cold. So they’ll mix mammoth DNA with elephant DNA and grow the critters in the laboratory. Psst, dude! That’s exactly how they got into all that trouble in Jurassic World!
The idea is to fight off Global Warming by turning a whole buncha mammoth-elephant-whatevers loose in Siberia to knock down the trees and trample the snow, which will keep the permafrost from suddenly thawing out because of SUVs and toilet paper and oh man oh man we’re all gonna die–!
Absent from the calculation is knowledge of what caused mammoths to go extinct in the first place, not to mention any sure knowledge of just how they interacted with their environment, and with what result. Which came first–the extinction of the woolly mammoth, or the forests that now cover much of Siberia where the mammoths used to live?
Aw, hell, we don’t need to know all that stuff before we grow a million mammoths in the lab and sick ’em on the trees.
Maybe they didn’t see Jurassic World.
Yikes! They polled a couple thousand guys and found that half the men in the UK, in their thirties, “struggle to get an erection” (https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/men-30s-hit-impotence-epidemic-12541561).
Why? Well, 49% blame stress, 24% cite an over-fondness for alcoholic beverages, 36% say they’re just too tired, and 29% blame anxiety. And don’t blame me for that coming out to 133%. Maybe someone’s abacus is broken. Or maybe a lot of guys gave more than one main reason for being stuck in neutral.
And “another one-third have broken up with their partners as a result.” “Pratners” is a word implying indiscriminate fornication.
So… Just like we’ve got this communications revolution but can’t think of much to say, we’ve got this great sexual revolution that leaves half its male participants unable to get out of the starting gate. And I’d better wind up this post in a hurry, because I’m running out of decorous euphemisms.
Hello? Is there anyone out there who really, truly doesn’t know culture rot when they see it? I keep on saying, “Kill the culture, and the culture will kill you back,” but the movers and shakers ain’t hearin’ it. They’d rather just keep on killing the culture.
We have oversexed our popular culture–and undersexed the people who live in it. What a trick! Way to go!
Mayor Bloomberg’s long gone, but not really–he could always emerge as the liberal statist version of Donald Trump. As mayor of New York City, Bloomberg fell into the habit of banning everything he didn’t think was good for people. You can always count on liberal dictators to try to infantalize their subjects.
If you’re living in New York (the current mayor, Warren Wilhelm dba “Bill DiBlasio”, may be seen as an incompetent Bloomberg wannabe), it only seems longer.
Well, now I’ve heard everything.
The New York Times, once the cheerleader for Stalin, says it’s “anti-science” to encourage teenagers not to have sex until they’ve finished school and are emotionally ready for a long-term commitment ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/07/new-york-times-teaching-children-delay-sex-anti-science/). The Times editors say that “defies all common sense.”
They wouldn’t know common sense if it ran up and bit them in the butt.
The Times excoriates the Trump administration for backing efforts to promote abstinence as pregnancy prevention and a sure way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Gee, you mean it isn’t? Like, how are you supposed to get pregnant or get an STD if you don’t have sex?
Maybe by reading the New York Times.
This was written before “Artificial Intelligence” became a buzzword and, at least for the moment, the eventual solution to every problem in the world.
There is a logical error here. I can’t remember what this particular species of error is called, but it consists of presuming to derive one quality from another when the qualities are totally different from one another. For instance, expecting perfection to arise from imperfection, intelligence from stupidity, apples from oranges–you get it.
I think this is how we wind up with 47 different genders.
We don’t expect to find twaddle like this in “Natural News,” but one fine day in 2015, there it was: we can end world hunger by adopting the habit of gazing fixedly at the sun.
Sheesh. There was a Father Brown story about a sun-gazing cult. Here it’s A Wise Yogi From India. The author of the Father Brown stories, G.K. Chesterton, said that once people give up believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing: they believe in anything. He was right.
Moral imbecility is a growth industry. Too bad you can’t buy stock.
A Stanford University law prof who doubles as a bioethics wallah predicts that within 20 to 40 years, sex will no longer be necessary for reproduction and that parents will be able to choose one or two embryos out of, say, 80: “Dozens of choices for which of your embryos should be placed in your womb to become your child” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ethicist-foresees-choosing-baby-dozens-embryos-050710538.html).
What about the ones who aren’t chosen? Oh, well…
The idea seems to be to create a whole passel of embryos and pick the one you want. Predicts the prof, “The majority of babies who have good health coverage will be conceived this way.” His book is called The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction.
No more sex? Oh, you’ll still be able to indulge in fornication. Indeed, says the prof, this technique would enable “same-sex couples” to have babies. Like, what more could anybody want?
Someday I fear a book will be written, While Christianity Slept. God grant I’m wrong.
I like to re-post this item now and then because it’s so interesting–and so challenging to the Stupid Caveman model espoused by evolution-sellers.
Let’s see a bunch of Gender Studies majors build something.