1) anonymous donation equating to possible daughter being released into the wild for me to unintentionally prey upon.

2) societal stigma of having a different baby momma for each of my 13 babies.

3) the possibility of said future child rising to defeat me.

But like I said: for the rest of you, you should totally do it, especially if you’re a Viking. It’s not QUITE as easy as dropping off a vile of baby batter into a Blockbuster drop-box though…

It’s not free money, says Scott Brown, head of communications. Donors must be at least 5 feet 9 inches tall and enrolled in — or have a degree from — a four-year university. Plus, they have to pass an assortment of genetic and medical tests, screenings, not to mention an investigation into their family’s medical history to look for the early onset of heart disease, cancer, etc.

“We joke that it’s easier to get into Harvard than to get accepted in our program,” says Brown. That’s funny because it’s true — Brown estimates that only 1% of all the applications are accepted. Harvard’s acceptance rate this year was 6.9%.

Most of California Cryobank’s donors stick with it for about a year and a half, donating once or twice per week, according to Brown. Each time they donate, they’re asked to abstain from sex for 48 hours beforehand and they get $100 per donation. The sperm bank mostly recruits at colleges, and many of its donors are students at Stanford University, Harvard University, University of California at Los Angeles and so on.

How stupid do they think we are? How is it possible to simultaneously wean ourselves from oil and the carbon dioxide emissions that stems from it, keep oil cheap and abundant, drill for oil absolutely nowhere, and sue oil companies without hurting consumers? Oh, and don’t forget to slap a “windfall profits” tax on the oil companies just for good measure.

It’s not possible to have all these “good” things together. Instead, we are seeing the consequences of following the anti-oil policies being pushed in Congress. Gas prices have gone through the roof, oil supplies for the future are threatened, and if the lawsuits against “big oil” go through exploration for future supplies will dry up leaving the world with little option but to get poorer over the next few years.

And the unpleasant fact is that a poorer world will be dirtier and less healthy for human beings, and not so great for nature either. Unless we want to concede that the earth would be better off completely without human beings—and just who would judge it so anyway?—then it is time to recognize that both human beings and the earth will be better off the wealthier we become. And for the foreseeable future, that wealthier future will depend upon drilling for oil.

Congress has been standing in the way of that better, wealthier future. By restricting prospecting for and drilling for oil within the United States, Congress has been keeping oil prices higher than they otherwise would be. And while high oil prices will help wean America off of oil eventually, our current experience shows that in the short run they just hurt consumers and help push our economy into a 1970’s-like tailspin that will make Americans less, rather than more environmentally conscious.

Oil prices will only drop if oil supplies can increase, and oil supplies can increase only if oil companies are allowed to drill for oil and be handsomely compensated for extracting and selling it.

Congress should be opening up the continental shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil extraction instead of raking oil company executives over the coals for not selling their product below world market price.

Consumers will benefit only if oil companies can extract, sell, and handsomely profit from the sale of oil that is currently under ground. No amount of complaining by Congressmen can change the laws of economics that makes that so.