Eat More Pandas

I have come to hate pandas. I have never actually seen a panda, but I still hate them. My panda hatred arose when I first began to reflect seriously on the “sacredness of creation.” I suspect most people, particularly soft-hearted people, associate the rare great panda with creation more than they associate the human diaper-rash-ridden bottom with creation. A shame really. Of course, diaper-rash-ridden bottoms are far from extinct and the sacred great pandas, are quite close. That should make someone feel at least some affection for pandas, but for me it does not. I do not like kiwis either, but for aesthetic Freudian reasons, they are oddly shaped fuzzy somewhat disturbing looking sour green berries that simply do not belong in American cuisine. But enough about kiwis. The panda, which I also hate, is the logo for, the World Wildlife Fund, and the World Wildlife Fund was the brainchild of British eugenicist Sir Julian Huxley. Eugenicists believe, in the words of Randy Newman “[some] people got no reason to live…” According to a recent article in the Economist, “Fewer Feet, Smaller Footprint” eugenics is making a bit of a comeback with respect to global --woo–ooo-ooo—WARMING. The upshot of the Economist article is “Fewer people would mean lower greenhouse-gas emissions.”

This means, according to the eco-elites represented in the article, if we are to genuinely appreciate the sacredness of say bush meat (poached African wildlife sold as meat to poor African humans) the best solution is to sterilize the bush men (that really means sterilize the women). To love the sacred panda then, we have no choice but sacrifice the far less sacred human ovary, but only the ovaries of the poor humans, or the ovaries of the eco-enlightened willing to make this sacrifice… until they figure out how completely crazy that sacrifice really is. The eco-enlightened feel deeply, that if nature is to have rights, a few humans will just have to lose their rights, a few million poor ones that is. This is also an idea much celebrated by Margaret Sanger, the pseudo-feminist whose eugenic wisdom gave birth to Planned Parenthood, and provided insights to the some of the less savory eugenicists of the 1930’s and 40’s.

So just in case someone might want to ignore, the hegemonic “dialogue” about the sacredness non-human creation that the eco-elites are having with themselves, and maybe actually create a sacred human child, it is important to understand the actual biological limitations of human fertility. In other words, if you figure out how crazy the eco-elite are a little too late, well, ship’s sailed. Unlike men who can remain stupid vastly longer than women because our biological ability to have children is vastly longer than that of women, women have a rather shorter number of years to mature out of naïve eco-elite ideology. If a woman wants a few children of her own, a woman has to grow up quicker than a man. Really. So here are the numbers according to Dr. Steven T. Dodge of California North Bay Fertility Medical Associates:

“A woman's fertility declines steadily after reaching peak levels between ages 18 and 25. From then to age 35 the average woman's fertility drops by about one half and thereafter declines more rapidly. By age 40 the average fertility rate is 15% of that found at age 25. The down slope continues until it reaches very low levels (1% or less per month chance of pregnancy) at age 44 and beyond.”