Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Dog, It's what's for dinner.

This could turn into the most entertaining conflict of the decade. After years of spewing hate on those cultures that eat dogs, animal rights activists, who were often the first to jump on the green bandwagon, are suddenly coming face to face with their conflicting emotions.

Bluntly put by a New Zealand writer:

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

For some time now, we have waited (but breathing comfortably) to see which of the environmentalists would be the first to stop talking about population reduction and start practicing it. Perhaps now, the possibility of a slightly less harsh radical approach to planet salvation will appease the conscience of many.

We shall see, eh? Who among them will love the planet more than Fido?

How do you get out of the conundrum that your useless pet is a bigger Gaia rapist than a Land Cruiser? The moral dilemma must be tearing them apart.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living....

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.

"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."

Just a shock tactic, eh? More like a moral beat down between the holy factions of the religion of global warming.

NEWSFLASH - People don't eat their "pet" chickens.

Still, perhaps they will learn a little tolerance for cultures that have used dogs sustainably for millenia?

Any bets?


  1. The 'math' and logic used in the book that led to their conclusions that dogs are worse for the planet that SUVs? Yeah, it wasn't that great.

  2. Logic and reason are not the strong suite of the eco-religious, and the rest of us already know they're crazy.

  3. Have you head of this blog? It's inactive now, but the author has some great take downs of the whole AR logic and philosophy. To me, the book was basically just another flavor of PETA-esque anti-pet propaganda.