How Much Bad News Can We Take?

Yesterday was a bad day—news wise. It’s not like World War III broke out—yet—but with Russian jets flying over our ships off Syria, and with headlines like, “China naval chief says minor incident could spark war in South China Sea,” it sounds like we’re getting a couple of steps closer.

Meanwhile, unless you were tucked away safely under a rock somewhere, you probably ryanwaxheard that bowhunter Paul Ryan is the new Speaker of the House (just two heartbeats away from the White House). Funny, I didn’t get a chance to vote for him, not that I would have. What’s this we hear about democracy? Is this how Nazi Germany got its start? (Hopefully this means he’ll be too busy to wait in his tree stand for a passing deer to recreationally-impale.)

And the last piece of bad news announced yesterday was that China coincidentally is ending its one-child policy. The media cited numerous reasons but stopped short of telling us that their population has decreased since the 1970s when they implemented the policy.

Having their population increase from 818 million in 1970 to 1.36 billion and counting (even under the one-child policy), it seems a strange time to decide to double their allowable birth rate. Of course, you need a lot of replacement babies if you want to be a major player in the world market—or declare World War III.



23 thoughts on “How Much Bad News Can We Take?

  1. Thanks for these realistic comments. Too bad we cannot face reality, eh? I do not understand humans: here is the rationale for increasing an already-over-the-top baby-making rate: our population is “aging.” Therefore, we must breed more….but gee, won’t these “babies” also age? Guess what? If you “grow more population of younguns’ you’ll get more “olduns.” that is what happens to populations, if one has studied Math. But, this is the ignorant mantra everywhere, including this country. I now believe, that if there ever was any “intelligence” in the human brain, someone must have stolen it–Aliens from another planet perhaps??

  2. Yes, China relented on the one-child policy. So there will be 9 billion human beings on this earth sooner than anticipated. I suppose there are some who are elated by that dismal prospect.

    Bad news from Florida: A huge ranch owned by the Church of the Latter Day saints (133,000 acres, as big as Manhattan) may be sold for development for a prospective human population of 500,000. The plan could destroy tens of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat at the headwaters of the St. Johns and Kissimmee Rivers.

    Bad news from Europe: More pain coming to the farmed animals. Europe is anticipating increase in halal slaughter houses. Some parents in Sweden managed to stop the use of halal meat in their schools for ethical reasons, and England apparently does not want halal killing. But the whole area, which had been moving toward more concern for animal welfare, is anticipating the demand.

    Do we all feel like Sisyphus yet?

      • Perhaps, but the continuing references from bloggers to politicians actually belittles the inhumane atrocities of that regime.

    • Senseless comparison to the inhumane atrocities of the Nazi regime, eh. Do you think there is really any other historical example comparable to what the human species is systematically doing to non-humans than what the Nazis did to those they classified as ubermenschen? If you do I’d like to hear about it!

      • I’ll try, but I hold little hope.

        The senseless slaughter of 6 million men, women, and children, with the intention of eliminating an entire race, bizarre medical experiments, annihilations of whole towns and cities are the worst examples of our loose definition of humanity.

        Using that extreme of cruelty and then comparing it to our president, for example, or the deadly experiments to the ACA, by our politicians and pundits, has cheapened and coarsened our discourse, and not only lowered our ethical and moral standards, but it weakens the impact of the unspeakable actions of war. They are not called atrocities for nothing.

        What we are doing to the world as a whole, not just the animals, is terrible. But I believe we will only have any credibility when we can speak and write with credibility, which we lose with “over the top” zealotry.

        Having said all this, I tend to doubt I’ve made a difference in your mind. But maybe for another reader…

      • One of the problems in human society, is the inability to make Critical Thought a priority for our species. It is the reason, we as a species, are impotent to make the sacrifices needed to mitigate the planetary crises, which is severely damaging life support systems, for all living beings.
        We learn, when we can think critically. This means we must be able to “connect the dots” between historical events and what is taking place today.
        So, yes, examining the atrocities, the actions that led to a maniac taking over Germany, and systemically creating propaganda, to create an “enemy” (in this case Jews, gypsies & others), & slaughtering them, should, most assuredly, be compared to other atrocities today. It is the same dangerous mindset, whether it be humans–or non-humans.

      • It’s hard to know how to respond to this discussion, which seems a classic case of Godwin’s Law. First Jim compares the installation of a new Speaker of the House to the rise of Nazi Germany, then Barney makes a provocative comment about a “senseless” comparison, then Geoff takes Barney’s comment as a rejection of any comparison between atrocities against nonhuman animals and the atrocity of the Holocaust. Rosemary’s appeal for critical thinking is well taken.

      • Godwin’s Law, that’s a good one Marc! Still chuckling. But I think the Nobel laureate IB Singer, a Jew who lost relatives to the Holocaust, should have the final word: “In relation to animals, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.”

      • Thanks for quoting Isaac Bashevis Singer; I was going to add that quote here today–glad you beat me to it. He also said: “People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times.”

        Isaac Bashevis Singer


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s