Oh brother: The Guardian has really slipped its moorings with this sub headline for a rather mundane futurist's peak into what awaits us by the year 2050:

As the planet faces the most dangerous century in its 4.5bn-year history, astronomer royal Martin Rees looks into his crystal ball.

Really? The most dangerous ever? Worse than when the primordial planet was bombarded by the countless comets scientists believe brought water to the planet? More dire than the time of the great extinctions? More dangerous than the ice ages? This green frenzy is driving people of a certain political persuasion nuts. And I think the hysteria that passes for reportage about the issue in many MSM outlets is one reason why fewer people believe in catastrophic climate change this year than last.

So what does astronomer Martin Rees predict is bearing down on us? The usual worries about over population and climate change, and hopeful predictions about space exploration and high tech advances. And then there is this:

Our sun formed 4.5bn years ago, but it's got 6bn more before the fuel runs out...

Any creatures who witness the sun's demise, here on Earth or far beyond, won't be human. They will be entities as different from us as we are from a bug. But even in this "concertinaed" timeline--extending millions of centuries into the future, as well as into the past--this century is special. It's the first in our planet's history where one species--ours--has Earth's future in its hands, and could jeopardise not only itself, but life's immense potential.

He's right, you know: But not about the manageable problems he is wringing his hands about. The real threat to the planet--and this isn't hyperbole--is nuclear war. N. Korea just tested a bomb the size of the blast that destroyed Hiroshima. Nuclear Pakistan is in danger of collapse. Iran is hot on their heels in the development of nukes, and many think it will use them. I just wish the media and the liberal West were as concerned about this truly dire threat as they are about the simulated computer projections that are the prime bases of global warming worries.

My photo

SHS Back on the Air--I Think

In case anyone tuned into this blog at the SHS II site, or reset their bookmarks, the original site is up and running again--very slowly. So, I am going to try and keep things there for convenience.

Here is the link. If things go bad again, I will be back at this site.

Thanks all, and I aoplogize for any inconvenience.

Pediatric Nursing Article's Nonjudgmentalism About Infanticide

Terminal Non Judgmentalism Alert: An important professional journal aimed at pediatric nurses has discussed killing sick and profoundly disabled patients with studied neutrality.

This is precisely how the Culture of Death permeates our society. A bioethical practice once almost universally condemned is promoted at the fringes. The initial response is resistance. But soon, the non judgmentalism arrives, usually in professional journals and among "progressive" pundits, asserting that these issues are "complex," or "difficult," or "gray," or "complicated." Once this non judgmentalism softens the ground, the issue shifts to one of mere "choice" (as with dehydration of PVS patients), and finally the decision of bioethicists (as in Futile Care Theory).

"The Groningen Protocol: What Is It, How Do the Dutch Use It, and Do We Use It Here?," (Pediatric Nursing/May-June 2008/Vol. 34/No. 30) by Anita Catlin and Renee Novakovich, is a case in point. (The Groningen Protocol is an infanticide "guideline" used in the Netherlands, discussed often here at SHS.) The article does a very good job of dispassionately describing infanticide practices in the Netherlands and Belgium, and contrasts it with American practices of palliative support, noting that euthanasia is unethical for nurses to participate in at the present time. It also gives both sides of the arguments about the Protocol, with yours truly the quoted opponent.

That is flattering, but the authors' rigorous objectivity about a matter that should be ipso facto condemned, is, to me, very worrying. From the article's bland conclusion (no link available):

Issues related to suffering infants, their families, and the nurses and doctors who care for them have been debated for many years. These issues have been examined medically(Carter & Levetown, 2004), ethically (Cassell, 2004), morally(Romesberg, 2003), and legally (Hurst, 2005). In the U.S.,with the desire for beneficence (doing good), the lives of extremely premature infants are frequently supported at the estimated cost of nearly one million dollars per hospitalization. The principles of social justice (care for all children) and non-maleficence (allowing no harm) are seen as less important. However, in countries with socialized medicine, the principles of social justice and non-maleficence (avoiding doing “good,” which causes suffering) have been seen as more important. As long as the U.S. health care system supports the use of extensive technology for infants with life-limiting conditions and provides reimbursement for extremely long hospital stays, the dilemma over what some might consider miracles and others view as suffering will continue

Beware! What we don't condemn, what we claim to be mere "dilemmas," we eventually are urged to allow. Infanticide is moving into the mainstream of bioethics and the medical intelligentsia.

(Can provide copy for those who e-mail me privately.)

Some Truths About PETA and HSUS

My friend David Martosko--who is the driving force behind the industry sponsored Center for Consumer Freedom--has a piece in today's Seattle Post Intelligencer about the need to spend Leona Helmsley's bequest to dogs on their welfare rather than animal rights proselytizing. Along the way, he makes some pithy points about two of the most prominent animal rightist organizations that the media generally ignore or about which reporters are woefully unaware. From his column:

So far, two familiar national animal rights groups, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States have announced their intentions to claim big slices of the $8 billion bounty. But neither one has the track record to handle such a responsibility.

Look at how PETA has spent the money it already has: The group raised more than $30 million last year, and found adoptive homes for 17 animals. Just 17. Meanwhile, it killed 1,815 dogs and cats--slightly more than the number of naked interns it sent out to "save" cows, chickens, and minks.

And although much of the public (and press) consider HSUS to be an actual "humane society," its record isn't any better. The group's name hides its lack of affiliation with any hands-on pet shelter anywhere in America. Of the $85-plus million HSUS spent in 2006, it gave only 4.2 percent to pet shelters.

My worry is that the term "animal rights" has become a catch-all term for animal welfare and animal protection, and thus in handing out the cash, a trustee or judge might not understand crucial distinctions. But animal rights and animal welfare are completely different concepts, the former being an ideology that ultimately seeks to end all domestication of animals, and the latter being in keeping with human exceptionalism to increase our efforts to treat animals humanely.

In my research for my upcoming book, PETA cames across as distinctly anti-human and profoundly mendacious. HSUS seems motivated by animal rights ideology but circumspectly spends its vast fortune biting at animal industries around the edges without actually promoting liberationist ideology.

But remember, money is fungible. If either organization gets their hands on the Helmsey fortune, woe betide animal industries that will be assaulted with increased litigation, propaganda, and agitation.

Bunny Letter Opener

Watch in horror as a cruelly enslaved rabbit is forced to open a letter by her lazy master.