The Economist: A Writing Staff Coping With Alzheimer’s

Society - Drinking From Human Skulls

I’ve been on to the bought and paid for mainstream media for a long time now. I started noticing after the events of 9-11, a period where I was glued to CNN for almost 6 months. I was freshly graduated from high school and I was lucky enough to be able to pay close attention to all the strangeness because, instead of going straight to college like somebody destined for success, I had chosen to take a break for a semester to do productive things like smoke weed and masturbate.

It was somewhere in between the process of getting high and ejaculating that I found all kinds of problems with the story being presented by the mainstream media on all kinds of events. Whether these inconsistencies were caused by ignorance, professional inadequacy, or nefarious big brother type motives didn’t really matter. What mattered was the story was clearly wrong or in some cases completely fabricated. I started to notice the guests being brought on to panel shows were nothing more than talking heads and the so-called experts being interviewed were off kilter in a way that made it seem like they must have been paid off. It’s been an open and shut case for a long time now that the media is in the pocket of big business and the big business run government.

Now let’s be clear – I’m paying attention. I scrutinize every detail I hear and watch. Still, news-writers have been pretty good at was spinning a story well enough to make it seem real to people who eat canned beans and wonder bread. However, this may be coming to an end very soon. This is because of the fact that there is a rapidly spreading affliction affecting many of the writers currently towing the company line. I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that there is an epidemic of Alzheimer’s Disease taking over the mainstream media.

The Economist: Writers coping with Alzheimer's

The Economist: Writers coping with Alzheimer’s Disease

The plight of an Alzheimer’s afflicted writer

Alzheimer’s of course is a serious disease and I don’t wish to make light of it in any way. But when your writing staff has been afflicted with it, it’s going to be tough as hell to keep things in order. For example, it’s really hard to write an article when you can’t remember what you just wrote in the last paragraph. Then you forget where you are and the entire article has lost context. Suddenly you are drinking coffee; but you never drink coffee. Or is it Jimmy that never drinks coffee? Good old Jimmy; I was with him when we used to go down to the water tower and skip rocks across the ocean. What’s your name again?

Surely by now you might be wondering why I am speculating that more and more mainstream news writers have Alzheimer’s. But my friends, this is not speculation at all. The proof is in the Alzheimer’s infected pudding: here in this article from the Economist entitled “Hang on – More growth, not less, is the best hope for averting a sixth great extinction”. The nonsensical arguments presented could only be the result of an entire writing staff made up of Alzheimer’s patients, although to be fair, I [don’t] have it on good authority that The Economist is run by a bunch of drunks who can barely tie their shoes. Makes you wonder why Velcro went out of style really.

Before I break down this article and prove my point, I should explain why I am even reading The Economist in the first place. I’m not 80 years old, I’m not a banker, and I’m not a wannabe free market success story. However, I have a student who actually is a banker and we read from The Economist every week for practice. Is this the first article showing evidence of Alzheimer’s that we’ve read together? Certainly not. But this one was just so extreme that I feel it can now be proved without a doubt that it was written in a hospital ward by somebody who thinks the nurse is his dead daughter. It’s sad. Really sad.

The Economist - Deforestation

The Economist thinks this leads to biodiversity…

The Economists’ Alzheimer’s outreach program

Now if you read the article, and I suggest you do, the first 5 paragraphs are actually somewhat on point. They describe how man and his technology is causing a lot of problems for nature. But then, a sudden twist of logic in the 6th paragraph makes it clear that the writer is writing in the middle of a severe Alzheimer’s episode:

“Yet when people start to reach middle-income level, other species start to benefit. That is partly because as people get richer, their interests begin to extend beyond necessities towards luxuries: for some people that means expensive shoes, for others a day’s bird-watching. Green pressure groups start leaning on government, and governments pass laws to constrain companies from damaging the environment. In the West, a posse of pressure groups such as Greenpeace and the Environmental Defence Fund started up in the 1960s and helped bring about legislation in the 1970s and 1980s.”

Let’s assess the logic here: People get richer, this gives them time to go bird-watching, therefore the government passes laws to clean the environment. Makes complete sense, unless you think about how people get richer. I find it especially odd that the writer missed that given the fact that they wrote about it in the previous paragraphs. I believe that Alzheimer’s disease is the only reasonable explanation for this gaff. The writer must have forgot what they wrote about in the beginning of the article.

The writer proceeds to pull more fact-rabbits out of his hat as you can see in this quote:

“Look, for instance, at the fate of the forests on the Korean peninsula: in South Korea, one of the world’s fastest-growing countries in recent decades, forest cover is stable, whereas North Korea has lost a third of its forests in the past 20 years. Nobody exported their growth to North Korea.”

See? Poor, brainwashed, ideological enemies of the “free-world” are super bad at maintaining their forests. Rich countries would never plow their forests for survival (probably because they can buy lumber from poor countries like North Korea instead). Take Brazil for example, the world’s 6th largest economy, whose soybean production operation takes place on what used to be part of the Amazon Jungle. Brazil is second only to America in terms of soybean production. So if we follow the logic here, according to the economist: Brazil is not the 6th largest economy in the world, Americans are rich and smart because they don’t need to cut down trees to make space for farmland (which they do anyways), and the Dodo population is still thriving because of economic development. That makes sense, right?

Cutting back on cutting down

The article goes on to mention that Brazil has scaled back their deforestation efforts from 28,000 square kilometers in previous years to 5000 in 2012. I think that’s probably because there was only about 5000 square kilometers left to cull of the Amazon entirely. Seriously though, has it really gotten so dark that we are applauding 5000 square kilometers of deforestation as a progressive number? This means they cut down roughly the same area as the entire city of Atlanta. Not downtown Atlanta – the entire metro Atlanta area. Good job Brazil! You only cut down an entire huge city’s worth of irreplaceable forest last year. I don’t mean to pick on Brazil, but certainly this is one piece of evidence that countries will do whatever it takes to “grow” economically, even if it means destroying the environment. Another quote:

“But the problem is by no means solved. Thousands of species are teetering on the edge of extinction. Whether or not they tip over depends in large part on two factors. One is climate change. If the temperature increase is at the medium to high end of the estimated range, then a biodiversity catastrophe is very likely. If it remains at the lower end—which the current hiatus in warming suggests is possible—then most species should not be too badly affected.”

All this information may well be true, but Alzheimer’s made the writer forget to include any facts, statistics, or quotes from reputable scientists or… anybody really. This brazen trend of making a statement and not backing it up with any facts is not a new trend in the mainstream. But in this case, we can get the figures easily. I think it’s important to point out how shameful this omission would be if the writer wasn’t sadly afflicted by Alzheimer’s.

The Economist - Biodiversity

Biodiversity in action… according to The Economist

The latest dance craze, “The Alzheimer’s shuffle”

This dance will make your head spin. Or give you the spins. Either way, you’re going to throw up if you read the Economist, as this quote indicates:

“The second is the demand for land. Habitat loss is the biggest threat to biodiversity. Mankind already cultivates around 40% of Earth’s land surface, and the demand for food is expected to double by 2050. If that demand is to be met without much more land being ploughed, yields will have to increase sharply. That means more fertiliser, pesticide and genetically modified (GM) seeds.”

Chalk up one win for Monsanto! Genetically modified seeds will save the day! One thing is for sure, the writer sure didn’t lose track of who paid him. Contradictions abound once again as the writer forgets their applauding of Brazil for tempering back their deforestation and says that habitat loss is the biggest threat to biodiversity. I agree with that point 100%, it’s just that my head is spinning from all the logical flip-flops. One thing this writer (who by the way is strangely not credited) does not know about is technology. He doesn’t know that if we really wanted to, we could build hydroponics facilities and scale them vertically to grow all the food we could ever need. We no longer need fields and we surely don’t need GM crops because we produce them inside a controlled environment. We can create timed, temperature controlled, automated food production facilities and all we need is electricity to make them work. I’m just going to go out on a limb and say that the hydroponics lobby is smaller than the corn lobby, the oil and gas lobby, the agricultural equipment lobby, and the genetically modified crops lobby, which could be why we aren’t going towards that method. Just speculation here.

“For this to happen, the green movement needs to change its attitude. It has helped other species by pressing governments for change, but some greens want growth to slow and most oppose intensive farming. They have made Europe a no-go zone for new GM crops, and have exported their damaging prejudices to Africa and Asia, to the detriment of biodiversity.”

Now this is just getting funny to read. The green movement opposing intensive farming leads to the detriment of biodiversity in Africa and Asia? I don’t know how to make that leap of faith. Thankfully I don’t have to, because the writer is afflicted with a very extreme case of Alzheimer’s indeed.

So as you can see, the current epidemic of Alzheimer’s is creating problems for the mainstream media. How can they convince the bleating masses that what they say is true if they can’t remember what they wrote in the previous paragraph? This is a big problem as it might lead to more free thinking, logical retort, and the dispelling of wrongs in the world. These are all things the mainstream media and their fat-cat overlords want to avoid. Unfortunately for them, the biological clock is ticking.

 I’d love to hear what you think of The Economist and their writing staff. Comment below or tweet at me (@DoniLovesYou), especially if you disagree, so that we may progress towards hugging it out. Also, if you liked what you read, help me out and share it with the buttons below:

Doni Cordoni

Doni Cordoni is a musician, comedian, writer and podcaster who philosophizes on society, technology and education - and, trust, that's only half as boring as it sounds. Find him on his blog, "Drinking from Human Skulls". Fist bump.
  • Doni Cordoni

    Hey guys, let me know what you think, especially if you read the economist! Ha…

  • Doni Cordoni

    Hey guys, let me know what you think, especially if you read the economist! Ha…