These Jellies Aren't Toast

“It's an ill wind...” and all that. Turns out that one of the species that has significantly benefited from the human species' domination of the earth – following on the heels of rats, pigeons, and cockroaches – is none other than the jellyfish. Apparently the worse the environment gets (according to the experts) the more the jellyfish thrive. A recent article speculates that “Human activities that could be making things nice for jellyfish include pollution, climate change, introductions of non-native species, over-fishing and building artificial structures such as oil and gas rigs.” This is truly remarkable. So nearly everything that man has done to “destroy” the environment turns out to favor one particular species – or genus – or whatever (hey, it's been a long time since I took biology). But now wait a minute. Isn't the very definition of man's deleterious impact on the environment based on what it does to other living things? Well of course, you'll say – but the jellyfish is just one of thousands. But then I say, isn't it also a foundational principle of environmentalism that any one species, or subspecies, can “outvote” all the rest when it comes to environmental impact? Think of the snail darter, or the spotted owl! If their one vote can cause millions of dollars in economic losses, why can't the jellyfish's vote cause, or allow, millions in economic gains? Surely we don't want to be accused of “speciesism” (not my term but one coined by the radical environmentalists)! I'll match your snail darter in court any day of the week with my jellyfish. How about that?

So, one again, the stage is set for another environmentalist meltdown and an episode of exploding liberal heads. And again we see that so much of their effort is expended on wildly subjective ideas and causes, and driven by impulse, emotion, and general infantilism. Is there any chance that, by having their arbitrariness exposed often enough, they might someday come to their senses? Well, let's see... OK, there are still people defending Stalin. I guess the answer is “no”.