Everything We Know is False
So it comes out that Baby Einstein videos, rather than making toddlers smarter, is actually making them dumber.
No big surprise there, really, but once again, we get another example of something that turns out to do the exact opposite of what we’ve been led to believe it does.
Yesterday I read this story about how walking to the store does more environmental damage than driving, since the food needed to replace the calories burned by going "shanks mare" is more carbon-intensive to produce than those burned by driving. (I think this conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?)
I also came across an article last year pointing out that it’s probably worse for the planet to be a cycle commuter than an automobile driver because, on average, cyclists live longer, and use up way more resources in their extra years than they ever saved while alive.
Penn and Teller, in their Bullshit program, make a petty good case that recycling is environmentally inferior to taking stuff to the landfill; all that plastic and glass you put in the recycling container gets thrown on barges and sits in warehouse parking lots waiting to be processed; the trash at the dump gets compacted, crushed down onto concrete-bottomed storage units, and then covered with compost and planted with trees. Again, this is probably best-case scenario for the trash, worst-case for the recycling, but it makes me question the value of my actions and veracity of my deeply-held beliefs.
It’s the scenario in Woody Allen’s film, Sleeper, all over again. Scientists in the 22nd century have discovered that cigarettes and red meat are the healthiest things for anyone to consume and while it probably won’t come out that this is true, how different is that than the recent revelations that diet soda makes you fatter than the sugary stuff?
But don’t believe anything that I’m saying, at least not for very long.
No big surprise there, really, but once again, we get another example of something that turns out to do the exact opposite of what we’ve been led to believe it does.
Yesterday I read this story about how walking to the store does more environmental damage than driving, since the food needed to replace the calories burned by going "shanks mare" is more carbon-intensive to produce than those burned by driving. (I think this conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?)
I also came across an article last year pointing out that it’s probably worse for the planet to be a cycle commuter than an automobile driver because, on average, cyclists live longer, and use up way more resources in their extra years than they ever saved while alive.
Penn and Teller, in their Bullshit program, make a petty good case that recycling is environmentally inferior to taking stuff to the landfill; all that plastic and glass you put in the recycling container gets thrown on barges and sits in warehouse parking lots waiting to be processed; the trash at the dump gets compacted, crushed down onto concrete-bottomed storage units, and then covered with compost and planted with trees. Again, this is probably best-case scenario for the trash, worst-case for the recycling, but it makes me question the value of my actions and veracity of my deeply-held beliefs.
It’s the scenario in Woody Allen’s film, Sleeper, all over again. Scientists in the 22nd century have discovered that cigarettes and red meat are the healthiest things for anyone to consume and while it probably won’t come out that this is true, how different is that than the recent revelations that diet soda makes you fatter than the sugary stuff?
But don’t believe anything that I’m saying, at least not for very long.
posted by Professor Dave at 3:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home