DEATH TO THE ENVIRONMENT!
But seriously, I do agree that there are indeed things that are far more important than $. However, when a new regulation for automobiles' emissions costs a loss of 1-2 MPG and yields only 0.001% cleaner emissions, does it not defeat its own purpose? As it certainly does cost an expenditure of not only $, but energy, & a certain amount of emissions just to bring each gallon of gas to the pump. In the long run, there are other targets for cleaner air than just automobiles. My understanding is that home heating systems using furnaces could be vastly improved for much less cost and far greater benefit than any further reductions in automotive emissions, even from the perspective of 10 years ago. But the automobile is far more noticeable.
On the other hand, in regards to recycling, I am all for it; my support is based not only upon the preservation of resources used in production, but in the reduction of landfills. Economic theory is applicable to more than just $. I once lived in a beautiful area, with thick woods, and no suburbs within miles. Well water was cold enough to drink, straight from the tap. However, the population was too small, thus the political power was too small to keep the landfill away. Oh, there was no shortage of assurances that the water table would be protected from landfill seepage and contamination. They even used some kind of containment device to assuage our fears. Within two measly years of opening, the landfill had indeed defiled the water table. Hence, the need to pipe city water with its chlorine & other chemicals. Suburbs soon followed, as did speed bumps and traffic jams.
My objection is to the government legislating on environmental theories that are not scientifically sound. It seems that Congressmen are more concerned with their re-election than with anything else. Hence, environmental issues become politicized, and the popular veiws are based upon TV shows, more than on real science. The solutions nearly always involve an infringement upon freedom, an increase in govt. regulations, and a subtle slide toward socialism and tyranny.
Celebrities with no scientific background but who are well-known support Chicken Little campaigns to ban this or that, based upon junk science, & everyone runs around screaming for government action. Congressmen, rather than scientists decide whether to pass this or that new regulation. Do they consult scientist? Perhaps, but I must wonder if they hear from scientists on all sides of the issues?
Tezuka Osamu included political and environmental messages in his comics, many of which were aimed at children. I think he was far more balanced in his environmental messages than in his views on war. Granted, he experienced war as a civilian in a defeated nation occupied by the victor’s forces. His unpleasant run in with the American soldiers as a young boy may have formed a very strong negative impression on him. My data comes from Schodt’s
Astro Boy Chronicles, and it is very brief at best. Schodt does indicate that Tezuka was very much affected by that one incident. I too can say that I was in a similar unpleasant encounter with members of another group that formed in me an ugly impression of all those, regardless of their differences from those whom I encountered. I was ten or eleven at the time, and I came to despise the entire lot of them, regardless of their personal characteristics. I little doubt that Tezuka Osamu grew from a boy into a man in an environment that vilified war, perhaps only because its own forces had lost. I do not want my focus to be upon specifics, but rather upon my argument that Tezuka’s views on war were influenced by his personal experiences as a teenager in a defeated country. Please restrict responses to that topic.
The thing with children’s literature is that they are blank slates, and readily absorb everything; having no innate standards against which they could compare new ideas. In regards to war, I do not think Tezuka depicted any justification for war, not even when it is a defensive act. OK, my knowledge of his manga is limited to Astroboy & Phoenix, all of which I have read. Anime is a bit broader, having had a friend who bought many Tezuka region 2 DVDs, and shared quite a few with me. I think KTWL did depict a few justified wars when aggressive animals attacked Kimba’s friends. But in Astroboy, I cannot recall even 1 instance of a just full-scale war even in anime, & none at all in manga. The chronicles took a very dim view of war, I tend to agree that Vietnam was none of our business, and if it was, why wait for the French to lose their asses in an attempt to reacquire their old colonial glory before going in to stop the spead of communism in SE Asia? But Tezuka seemed to generalize from that one specific war that all war was evil regardless of whose side we were on.
Anyway, I think Tezuka was traumatized by the incident, being just a boy going through his daily routine, and foreign soldiers push him around and smack him around because he spoke no English. This incident burned in him every time he thought about it; it was so unreasonable and unfair of them to expect that a Japanese boy should speak English. This is not to say that other anti-war supporters had similar reasons, only that this was the foundation for Tezuka’s. If Japan had not lost, would he have held the same position?
Did I ever say I disagreed with ALL or even any of Tezuka's positions? I believe you took my words out of context. However, I do prefer war to enslavement.
