One of the most amusing things in life is listening to people who have anointed themselves as the world’s experts on health and how modern conveniences like food processing, electricity, cell phones, etc., are endangering our lives. Most of these people live not on farms but in cities or suburbs and, if you read what they write, you’ll quickly learn that they have very little knowledge of natural philosophy or world history.
Argument #1 – “It wastes energy.” Energy cannot be wasted. Energy is merely converted from one form to another. So, it would need to be argued that converting electricity into the million-and-one things electricity is being converted into is, indeed, “wasteful”.
Argument #2 – “It disrupts ecosystems.” First, the city has already disrupted any ecosystems before any electric lights were turned on. I would argue that clearing fertile land and covering it with concrete and steel is probably the real cause of the ecosystem disruption.
Argument #3 – “It blocks our view of the stars.” To be fair, what does a person living in a metropolitan area affected by light pollution intend to do with their profound astronomical observations? Give me a break.
Argument #4 – “Light at night disrupts our natural biological clock.” Animals (and people) who live outdoors, know that there is light outside at night. In fact, there are nights when the moon shines so brightly that you could throw a football around or work in the garden. People who live indoors don’t seem to understand that. Contrary to this silly suburban idea, God did not intend for men to live in darkness at night, and our bodies have no natural need for blackness after sunset. God made the moon and stars “to give light upon earth”…at night and the quantity of that light varies daily as the moon passes through her phases.
Argument #1 – “Pasteurization makes milk unhealthy.” First of all, farmers can drink all the unpasteurized milk they want. It’s city and suburban people–with no farms or cows–that can’t drink unpasteurized milk. The government does not forbid the consumption of raw milk. It forbids the mass production, transport, storage and sale of raw milk…to people who do not live on farms. If you buy a home in a suburb or city, there’s no sustainable way for you to sit on your can and drink health raw milk…and the government knows that. So the government rightly requires that your milk be treated to prevent it from being contaminated by bacteria that is allowed to grow unnaturally, for milk is “naturally” consumed directly from the teat and digested instantly, and less “naturally” by milking and drinking away from the cow, but not naturally at all by transporting the milk to people miles away to store in refrigerators and consume as they please.
Argument #2 – “Food Processing Depletes Nutrients.” Again, no, living far away from the places where food comes from depletes nutrients. If you live on a “yard” where no food grows, your property’s nutrient content is….ZERO. The fact that you get ANY nutrients from food is a surprising reality. The fact that the people who magically fill the shelves of supermarkets with edible food (from farms) for people who live in what are functional deserts get any nutrients to them at all should be considered a good thing.
I could go on here, but the real problem is that people have moved away from farms without considering where their food would come from. God did not create the city, or the suburb, we know, and choosing its conveniences without considering its costs is the real source of most of these problems. These modern “problems” are, in fact, not the inventions of evil people who just sit around inventing evil, but of people who have to deal the consequences of modern ideas that are now bearing their fruits.
Modern people, in all honesty, have no respect for self-sustaining farmers. To see a man hoeing a garden by hand, mucking a barn stall or milking a cow will gain grimaces or sighs from moderns who…just…know…the…better…way. What they neglect are the ends, which ultimately determine the wisdom of paths chosen.