I want to apologize to everyone for an unintentional gaffe I made in last week's poll. It was the result of insufficient research time and I hope not to repeat it. I assumed ImagiNext Dinosaurs
would be a toy Evan Wishes He Had When He Was a Lad But They Weren't Invented Yet ("This is a crazy person's diary!"
), but I was incorrect.
Imagine ... a civilization of humans and dinosaurs, living in a lush, green land. One side—the predators—are using up its natural resources, wiping out everything and everyone that gets in their way. The other side—the ecovores—want to preserve their land. And they're willing to fight to make that happen. Will the predators succeed in destroying the land, causing their own extinction? Or will the ecovores stop the destruction and make the land a place where dinosaurs and humans can live together peacefully? In the world of Imaginext, anything is possible!
Bad guys are the ones who will stop at nothing to get natural resources. Good guys are the ones who try to stop them. Perhaps suggesting some Kos fan on the Fisher Price payroll came up with the idea to use toys to give kids a guideline against which to judge the right and wrong way to interact with your environment is too grand a conspiracy theory, but it's even scarier to think that it's not - nobody thought to question a toy that promotes a particular political ideology because this normalization has already happened.
But saving the environment is good! Sure it is. Okay, then what's next? What other isms are on the backs of toy packages or on Sesame Street? It reminds me of that "they came for the blanks but I wasn't a blank so I didn't say anything" poem: we know how easy it is to turn an opinion into a culture, but it's not a big deal because this is a "good" opinion. They taught the children environmentalism but I didn't mind because I liked environmentalism.*
I'm not the only one who's noticed this, but this guy has a different spin on it
Not only is this radical environmentalist mumbo-jumbo masquerading as a children's story, but it is bad radical environmentalist mumbo-jumbo. In the first place, predators like tyrannosaurus, allosaurus, and velociraptor were, of course, themselves part of a thriving ecosystem, not destroyers thereof. Removal of such predators from their ecosystem would actually destroy the balance in that ecosystem. Second, Fisher-Price has named the preservationist heroes of their story "ecovores"—which is not only absurd but incoherent within the storyline. The combining form eco- is obviously from ecology, but the combining form -vore has to do with what an organism devours ... Thus, the heroes of this backstory, the ecovores, are "those who devour the ecology," which is ridiculous for creatures trying to preserve the ecology. But as far as that goes, who ever heard of herbivores trying to "preserve" the ecology? What could that possibly mean? Strict fern rationing for the brachiosaurus? Pachycephalosauri limited to eating five lilly pads per meal? It's just silly.
And really. To bring this back to the original reason why it was wrongly included in last week's poll: what kid wants to play with peaceful, land-preserving creatures when there's bugs out there to mutilate?
*This is the first non-poll, thinking, even remotely political post I've made in a long long time. Forgive me - I'm a tad rusty.