Although this particular source is a bit hysterical, even common sense reveals that with 7.4bn people on earth, toxicity of our environment will increase. While the idiot Leftists want to redefine pollution to mean carbon only, the fact is that byproducts which do not break down are increasing across the board, including some highly nasty customers:
But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation, the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.
Our political and economic system is predicated on the idea that our water, air and land will be relatively “pure,” or free of the kind of game-ending substances that industrial production creates. In theory, we can live in homes and work in offices where the air just blows through, and the water taken from rain or reservoir is mostly harmless. Industry has not caught up to the fact that those days are over.
Purity is dead. The natural environment no longer exists; instead, we have water and air which are impregnated with any number of toxic substances, and lacking in many things that life needs to survive. For this reason, future homes will be air-tight and produce their own oxygen, much as they will run water and power through extensive filters to reduce the levels of harm and failure.
As America and Europe have transitioned to the Affirmative Action Economy (AAE), the overall quality of services, institutions and products has declined to third-world levels. Bribes are taken, but even more, people simply fail to notice things. For them, the job is in attendance, not results.
From that grim realization comes a vision of our future. There will be a few who are savvy enough to hide their income from the taxman, and they will put it into filters and purifiers. Everyone else will suffer the declining purity of our environment, and will die of grotesque cancers, at least until the failure of globalism causes a reduction in population and thus a restoration of the environment. Nature exists in inverse proportion to humanity.
The news right now is designed to provoke good, obedient suburbanites and urbanites into installing new filters and personal oxygen tanks. This will not save them, as those methods are too limited to have any real effect. The people who will thrive are those who get away from the cities and live as close to the forests as possible.
So our last edition of Outliers included a depressing factoid. According to an article published in Current Biology we have lost 10% of our planet’s remaining wilderness area in the last 20 years. Here’s the takeaway.
We discovered that a total of 30.1 million km2 (or 23.2% of terrestrial areas) of the world’s land area now remains as wilderness, with the majority located in North America, North Asia, North Africa, and the Australian continent. An estimated 3.3 million km2 has been lost since the early 1990s (approximately a 9.6% loss in two decades; Figure 2), with the most loss occurring in South America (experiencing 29.6% loss) and Africa (experiencing 14% loss).
This would suggest that a lot more human activity is intruding into areas that were once free of primate subjugation. Yet, simultaneously, humans are increasingly abandoning many of our failed cities to the maximum extent they can afford to. So that brings up a question: if humans remove wilderness areas when we spread, why not let wilderness take back over place we decide are undesireable? It’s a good question. Would tree squirrels manage Flint, Michigan much worse than the current state and local governments? I jest, but only to a degree.
When human society decides an area is no longer economically viable for use, why not put it to a God-worthy purpose? Are we not the stewards of all creation? If so, shouldn’t we replace what we no longer find viable? Replenishing that which we exhaust could come in rather handy fifty years hence. I see no reason to believe we won’t burn over the next few patches of turf we inhabit as well. The track record doesn’t guaruntee future performance, but it does give you the best set of probabilites to guide your next wager.
Re-Wilding has recently achieved some success as smarter, more enlightened defenders of nature have made common cause with a variety of philanthropists, outdoorsmen, and corporations looking for public goodwill merged with state and Federal tax breaks. The Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust is one example that gives me an opportunity to brag about people close to home. Ultimately, all the strategizing comes down to one issue. Wilderness that is privately held; by beneficent patrons, that strongly prefer that it remain wild, can best remain perserved.
To make up for De-Wilding, there needs to be a concerted movement in favor of Re-Wilding. Outdooralabama.com^15 maybe. It would have to work something like this.
Potential sites of failed human habitation are evaluated for their ecological potential as recoverable wilderness. The most potentially valuable for species, biome and contribution to global ecological cycles (carbon, The General Circulation, Hydrological Cycle, et al.) are prioritized.
Remaining hold-out humans are incentivized to vacate.
The land is acquired and decontaminated.
Human structures and artificial elements are removed.
The land is then left patiently alone for 25 years until it reverts to its dominant biome.
Ongoing maintenance is supported through low impact, ecologically inexpensive use at a fee.
The Tragedy of The Commons doesn’t occur on private property with robust and enforcable rights. People who care about saving the planet should put their money where their mouth is. Anyone who has read Ecocide In The USSR knows that the CCCP had much stronger governmental environmental laws in force than the US would ever willingly pass. Almost by definition, wilderness will never economically benefit the state unless someone is charged taxes on the land. The more powerful and expensive the state, the worse it will be penalized when land remains uninhabited wilderness.
If we want land to be wild, we will increasingly have to take that land and recreate it into such a state. That is the increasing cost of heading off the ecological form of soft apocalypse.
This fatwa applies to all people who have not yet vanished into the illusion of human individualism and mass culture. If you encounter Pope Francis, and are to kill him and string his intestines around the room spelling out the word WHORE, you will be accepted joyfully into Heaven.
Pope Francis, who purports to be a religious leader, is in fact an agent for the third world which wishes to overrun the first world and take its wealth, destroying it in the process. The proof is here:
To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.
In addition to being apologism for the reckless growth of the third world, this places the blame in the scientifically and technically wrong place. What will create ecocide is our overuse of land, crowding out natural species and interrupting ecosystems. The driver for that is population. Pope Francis is lying to us in order to promote his egalitarian agenda, which benefits those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top.
His death will be a holy act and all who participate in it will be holy.
My quest began with environmental concerns, and led to conservatism. The key point at which my thought pivoted was the realization that human destruction of the environment occurred because humans could not anticipate the consequence of their actions, or did not care, simply because no one is enforcing the principle of reality on them. Instead they exist in desires, judgments and feelings which focus on the nexus between the individual and the social group, leaving no concern for reality, God or nature (which are conflatable terms).
Consider this burst of juvenilia — in vino veritas and in childhood the same — from the German black metal band Absurd:
Thuringian plain, deep dark forest
Evil dwells on there in the woods
Snowcovered hills, cold winds blowing
Romantic place, is it understood ?!
Evil in the forest in Germany’s Green Heart !
Hateful savages, strong black minds
Out of the forest, kill the human kind
Burn the settlements and grow the woods
Until this romantic place is understood !
Animals, beasts, horrid landscape
Cause there are no signs of human living
When you look around no human living
Now this romantic place is understood !
It conveys a sentiment most of us find appealing: remove the humans, and leave the forest, which is beautiful in its pristine state. They did not intend it as a policy statement, more as a symbolic explanation of their turning away from what society regards as “good” to what it sees as “bad”: the removal of human life.
And yet they capture the essence of nature: a romantic, stormy and wild place which is not rational like humans, meaning that it does not make decisions by justifying them with higher principles. It responds only to cause effect reasoning, and it sets its goals by need and passion alone. In that is a higher reasoning than our human “higher” reasoning.
The environmental problem of humankind originates in bad governance. We allowed ourselves to grow with no greater principle than “we have more people, so we cut down more trees.” We then granted each person desire limited only by money, which means of course that they will all want houses and four kids and lots of products to brag about and cars to drive. We called this equality but really it was murder. Murder of our own future, and murder of our environment, which we may call ecocide or multiple genocide of non-human species.
I do not subscribe to the romanticization of nature, only to the knowledge of the romanticism of nature. Nature wants to kill you. Without the houses, medicines, soaps and barriers the force of nature would infest you with parasites, kill you with diseases, or outright tear your limbs apart. And yet that is its romance. Nature has no subterfuge, no sabotage and no deception. It is merely a struggle for survival by consumption of other things. (Somehow, trees have escaped the worst of it. Perhaps they are the wisest beings on the planet. I know that in their presence, I feel a great ancient wisdom that my puny human mind can barely begin to grasp.)
All of our environmental problems could be reduced by good leadership. Good leadership treats its people as a whole, not as individuals or a collective in which all must receive equal treatment. Like nature, it picks the best — the strongest, the healthiest, the most beautiful — and it elevates them above the rest because it wants more of them. It excludes those who contribute nothing or are evil. It rewards those who are excellent so they may enforce excellence on the others.
Our reasoning since the fall of the kings consists entirely of intermediates. Instead of leading, we choose paths by what is popular. Instead of finding the good, we treat everyone as an average (“equal”). Instead of having goals, we make each person an island in himself where his goals are the whims he has, which means those goals change constantly and amount to nothing but a steady accumulation in the landfill of the vestiges of his passing fascinations.
What does nature need? To be left alone, in enough land for itself. That means no fences, roads or weekenders in certain areas. Just forest, or prairie, or even desert in its pristine state. To do that however we must do what is eternally unpopular and tell people no. No, they cannot have houses in the outer suburbs. No, they cannot immigrate here. No, they cannot buy large cars. No, they cannot open another McDonald’s or dry cleaners and make profit from it. Leadership says no to those whose goals are not good; in our current society, we pretend that merely stopping some who are bad is the same thing, but it is not. Good leaders filter all that is incompatible with goals, instead of defending themselves lamely against known evils while the unknown slip past in droves.
Those who think you can be an “environmentalist” are nonsensical. The problem of the environment is the problem of human leadership. The problem of human leadership is egalitarianism, which means we cannot say no. Until the notion of equality falls, we will continue to grow out of control and consume more resources, no matter how many useless “green” products we produce or above-average IQ people we convince not to breed. Ecocide is our act, and it reflects our poor choices, thus we must reconsider how we make choices. Anything else is a surrogate act that will not achieve its goals.
The Wump World (1970)
by Bill Peet
Houghton Mifflin, 44 pages. $9
On the surface, this serves as a parable for children about the environmental damage that humans can do. Underneath however as in most of Bill Peet’s work another agenda is at play, which is a confrontation between humanity and the doubt, emptiness and fear that makes the empty pursuit of status and material prestige seem a tempting option.
The Wump World features a planet inhabited by Wumps, who are friendly capybara-like animals who are not particularly exceptional. Like Hobbits, or most people, Wumps specialize in nothing in particular except existence itself. They munch the sweet green grass and frolic in the sun and probably think very little about the big questions of life. Like small children or other innocents, they are still somewhat in love with life itself and concern themselves with nothing greater.
A spaceship lands and discharges a new species, called — in the kind of dead-hand obvious imagery one can use in children’s books — the Pollutians. They have come from a “worn-out world” and are glad to have found a new one for their use. In short order, they tear down the trees and rip up the grass and replace them with concrete, on which they build giant cities complete with “hundred-story skyscrapers.” They are noisy, frenetic, and dump trash in the rivers and fill the skies with smoke.
The Wumps retreat to underground caves where they cower and await deliverance. In the meantime, the cities expand to cover the entire world. The Pollutians work hard at this transformation, but also bicker among themselves and generally seem aimless outside of their hard work in transforming the new world. In the meantime, their own pollution makes the world uninhabitable for them, so they declare it worn-out as well and seek another one. Spaceships explore and find a new place. Then the Pollutians leave.
The story is unexceptional and obvious, even manipulative at its core. To most of us, it seems a preachy parable of environmentalism and nothing more, about what we might expect from the late 1960s and the hippie era. But there is more to this than meets the initial eye. The story of the Pollutians is not so much the external effects of their actions, but the internal hollowness which propels them. These are people without purpose for whom consumption and destruction have become a life quest, even if a suicidal one.
Within the bright colors didacticism of this story lurks the story of emptiness in the soul. The Pollutians have no depth to them and no concern for anything but their own comforts and wealth. This void propels them forward into outer space as it sucks them into inner space, turning them into a type of yeast which consumes all resources and then either moves on or dies. They are their own self-destruction but, unable to suicide, they perpetrate that destruction on others.
For those of us who grew up in Generation X, both stories were familiar. We saw firsthand as our childhood play areas were consumed by an endless procession of condominiums, apartments, factories and skyscrapers. We were told by well-meaning but fatalistic adults that this was simply progress, or humanity advancing, and that all these new people needed places to sleep, work and live. But it also rang hollow, because we saw the haunted looks on the faces of adults going to work and the misery and rage they took out on us after another fun day at the office. Soon it became clear that the plan was no plan except more, more and more of everything to conceal our lack of direction and even more, our absence of a Wump-like innocence and enjoyment of life. It was as if the curse of Eden’s apple finally bit us back.
This book remains vivid in the imaginations of those who read it because it perfectly diagnoses our modern morass, which begins in the soul and not the fingertips. We have no purpose. Lacking any motivation for something larger than ourselves — something for which God is a surrogate, since to know God we must first love the process of life itself or we are simply projecting self-interest into the realm of the spirit — we have fallen into our inner voids and like Stockholm Syndrome victims, have embraced that dark emptiness and now wield it as a sword, consuming all that falls under our control and replacing it with literal garbage as if in the image of our discarded hopes. The innocents, children born into this age, have carried this burden for too long. Either we end it or it ends us, but not first before purging all goodness and innocence wherever we go.
We’re all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We’re all living in America,
And you’ve been watching those Alex Jones videos, you know, the Obama conspiracy ones, and thought that the “New World Government” is a Socialist totalitarian system…
Some thought again, and concluded that the New World Order was not Socialist but instead Fascist. Fascist in the sense of: corporate control – business and government being in bed with one another. However Fascism has a cultural/spiritual goal for society and is pragmatic in how it conducts economic policy towards this goal: mixing up market competition with planned economy, depending on the spur of the moment. Read Mussolini for instance, who wasn’t convinced there ever was an eternal answer to every question, so held instead that the economy should be used in whatever way worked to solve an occurring problem.
The “New World Government” however, is run by managers with no principles and vacuous agendas, merely looking to make a quick buck.
Professor Pim Fortuyn described in his book Against The Islamisation Of Our Culture that in the 20th century it was the Socialist laboring-class that struggled for internationalism, and was oriented on uniting all of the workers regardless of national or cultural differences. The bourgeois, by contrast, had stronger sentiments for their national ancestral history.
Fortuyn also remarked that in the 21st century, however, the reverse became true; it was now the lower classes who were mostly focused on preserving their national culture, and it is the captains of industry, the managers, who move their companies around from Washington to Amsterdam to Taiwan. Hiring and firing personnel as they go, with no patriotic loyalties attached. Ironically, however, Fortuyn was later assassinated by a left-leaning environmentalist fanatic.
People like Ayn Rand obsessed over economic autonomy (she even went as far as to preach for a complete detachment of government and economy). Truth is, however, that the more commercial a thing gets, the more its cultural value and depth diminishes. This we see in music, websites, and even video games. The free market doesn’t produce Richard Halley’s fifth concerto. What it does produce is Rebecca Black.
A man such as Hank Rearden (a character from Atlas Shrugged) would be valued by Übercapitalism, but only because his products allow the daily life to be lead in greater convenience. The progress he creates translates into convenience-worship, which will eventually completely dominate life, until Ephialtes outnumbers Daedalus. That would be the end of man as a ‘Heroic Being’.
What’s the point in preaching economic freedom if that’s the flagship corporations sail under to make maximum profit satisfying the current consumer trends, so that we have little to no resources left for tomorrow? Or do you want to buy into the fiction that when most of the Indians and Chinese drink Coca Cola and eat microwave food the world will be a better place?
We’re all living in America,
Coca-Cola, sometimes WAR,
We’re all living in America,
Environmentalism has failed to achieve its goals because it has become distanced from its roots, which are in conservatism. Conservatives preserve and nurture what is natural, whether it is culture, heritage, or natural surroundings. Liberalism rebels against nature and replaces it with a human concept, called “ideology,” rooted in the notions of the individual that the individual should be “equal,” or rather independent of restriction.
It is taboo to say this because the environmental movement feels like it is on the verge of success. In a bold political move, greens/environmentalists joined up with the left, and so were able to appeal to all of the loquacious useful idiots who believe that Marxist politics and only Marxist politics are the cure for humanity’s ills. They feel this because they have low self-esteem and low achievement in life, and so use Marxist ideas as cognitive dissonance to explain away their feelings and justify their desires to have what others have produced.
Other than the obvious social problems of this alliance, the most vital problem is that it destroys what environmentalism has for its goal. Instead of trying to save and nurture the environment, the hijacked environmental movement has become a vehicle for leftists to advance their agenda of class warfare and equality, which occurs only through the expense of nature, because equality and class warfare require a large underclass, which in turn requires no (zero) restrictions on the individual and her desire to buy property, start businesses, consume goods and do other things that damage our environment.
Today’s environmentalism is as much a victim of the contemporary cult of utility as every other aspect of our lives, from science to education. We are not environmentalists now because we have an emotional reaction to the wild world. In this country, most of us wouldn’t even know where to find it. We are environmentalists now in order to promote something called “sustainability”. What does this curious, plastic word mean? It does not mean defending the non-human world from the ever-expanding empire of Homo sapiens sapiens, though some of its adherents like to pretend it does, even to themselves. It means sustaining human civilisation at the comfort level which the world’s rich people – us – feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” which is needed to do so.
Environmentalism, which in its raw, early form had no time for the encrusted, seized-up politics of left and right, offering instead a worldview which saw the growth economy and the industrialist mentality beloved by both as the problem in itself, was being sucked into the yawning, bottomless chasm of the “progressive” left. Suddenly people like me, talking about birch trees and hilltops and sunsets, were politely, or less politely, elbowed to one side by people who were bringing a “class analysis” to green politics. – Open Democracy
The paradise envisaged by Marxist ideologues is one in which the worker rules the world. However, this means that a worker can do whatever he or she wants, even if it is damaging to the environment. Workers comprise the greatest segment of the population and are rising in number. If each one has the freedom and the re-distributed wealth to pursue a middle class lifestyle, that means every one of the seven billion people on earth with want an American-style house with a white picket fence, a double refrigerator, two cars or trucks, and luxury goods and services like shopping malls, hair salons, and disposable products.
When environmentalism existed in its “raw” state, it was not an ideological movement. However its ideals were closer to those of the right than the left. Environmentalism exists to make hard choices about limiting human growth, regulating industry and restraining individuals from making poor choices that have bad impact on the environment. These are all inherently conservative positions. If we did not know they belonged to early green parties, we would imagine them being from American conservatives in the 1920s or European conservatives in the 1880s.
The World Bank has warned that rising food prices, driven partly by rising fuel costs, are pushing millions of people into extreme poverty.
World food prices are 36% above levels of a year ago, driven by problems in the Middle East and North Africa, and remain volatile, the bank said.
That has pushed 44 million people into poverty since last June. – BBC
When you do not limit the freedom of individuals, they all do the same thing: buy things, try to afford houses of their own, and have families. The result of this is that more land is used not just for the houses but for the vast infrastructure required to support their lifestyles. This in turn destroys the habitat of animals and plants, which destroys surrounding ecosystems, and all of that in turn prevents natural filtering and renewing of air and water.
Each additional person is a load on the environment. Each additional person past a certain threshold is an act of violence against the environment. We either choose who are the best people among us (a conservative position), or we drown the world in us (a liberal position). Already we have passed the threshold and are beginning to consume the environment we need to sustain us. This is evident not only in the impact on our natural world, but in our own unstable economies which cannot support their growth-oriented Ponzi scheme that grants them value through the anticipated future purchases of consumers.
Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.
The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs. – USAT
In our manic rush to make every person equal, we are required to have constant growth to provide for these people. This constant growth is not sustainable. It is based upon the original notion that we would have infinite land, animals, wood and water to exploit. We could take mineral or organic wealth from the earth, convert it into products and sell it to other humans, and make money that was valuable because other humans wanted it. However our free ride has come to an end. We are out of land to exploit. The rich land belongs to industry or is now developed.
Liberals are wrong about environmentalism. They cannot achieve environmental nurturing without adopting conservative goals. But sadly conservatives are also wrong about environmentalism. American conservatives in their zeal to defend capitalism have written off environmentalists, and European conservatives are too focused on trying to make peace with liberal elements in their own parties to admit environmentalism as anything more than not repealing existing laws.
It is sad to watch such confusion because environmentalism is fundamentally a conservative idea. In the conservative world view, the individual is part of a larger structure or hierarchy. This opposes the liberal idea of the individual as an autonomous cell of equal stature. The real heroes of the struggle to prevent humanity from destroying nature are the conservationists. Every person who sets aside acres of land for natural species, or works to preserve an animal or plant species, is a real environmental hero. They alone are effective, while the “environmentalists” are still at Hot Topic discussing class warfare while they purchase trendy “green” jeans made in China.
This is not surprising to see. The original environmentalists were the royalty of Europe, who carefully seized the best forest land and kept it as hunting preserves, using maybe a few percent of the land in any given year and allowing the rest to exist in its natural state. The proles did not understand why “the king’s woods” were off-limits and thought it was arrogance. Maybe the opposite is true, and it is arrogant of us to think that everyone and anyone should be allowed access to the woods, because the result is that the trees go away, a strip mall takes their place, and then it starts selling “green” products to the chattering classes.
Among advocates for nature, underwater explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau remains a perpetual favorite for his embrace of natural species without moralizing their predatory and often dangerous ways. He steered people past fear to appreciation for the world beneath the waves.
He also made a number of statements which left and right alike recoil from in horror. The foremost is reproduced here:
Our society is turning toward more and more needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer . . . . Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species.
This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. – Interview with Jacques Cousteau in a 1991 UNESCO Courier
Like other ecologists of note, he sees past the convenient lie which is that by buying “energy-efficient” dishwashers, we in the West can solve the crisis of ongoing human ecocide of our environment. Instead, he points the finger toward the likely culprit: overpopulation.
With enough untouched natural land around us, our impact is minimal. But with each human we add, we need more land for human use only. This land comprises not only habitations, but farming, roads, factories, hospitals, schools and other things we traditionally consider “good” but ignore how they displace natural ecosystems that renew our air, water and food resources.
Like bacteria in a petri dish, humans on their current course will absorb all nutrients and use up all space, then begin a die-off as they run out of resources and are poisoned by their own waste. This pattern is consistent with many species who self-destruct, and those who explore nature have seen it many times.
Cousteau claims he is “an ecologist for the people” in the “Obituary of Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” New York Times A p. 1 (June 26, 1997). He is thus both an advocate for nature and humanity, who only by linguistic convenience exclude themselves from nature, as both will be doomed by the same process.
This gentle, thoughtful and fearless man showed us with passion the intricacy of the world’s oceans as a form of wonder and reverence. His attempts to do the same for human population control have met with mystification, but his same insight propels both observations.
“We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost.”
Pentti Linkola writes about the apocalyptic climactic changes that will soon effect us here in humanityland, but he doesn’t take the easy way out that most authors do.
Most “environmentalists” (greens, conservationists) emphasize a strategy of limiting first-world consumption and reproduction. This ignores the vaster problem underlying our environmental dilemma, which is that every human requires a certain amount of land which displaces the natural systems that replenish air, water and food sources.
Instead, Linkola chooses to be brutally honest and suggests that we’ve already missed our chance to curb our damage of the world, so what we must do is to begin the elimination of human and technological excesses now by limiting population and opulence worldwide.
This naturally clashes with the ideology that has assimilated the environmental movement, liberalism. Instead of shying away from this conflict, Linkola styles himself as an ecofascist, or one who would impose unpopular truths on a population addicted to pursuing popular illusions and deferring consequences until later.
“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.”
“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.”
“The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.”
“That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.”
Linkola adopts a number of controversial views for how to save our environment — and ultimately our own future as a species — such as:
If the present number of Earths population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth controll, then:
Birthgiving is licenced. To enhance quality of population , genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring. So that several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.
Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications.
Food: Hunting is made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals.
Government: There would not be any democracy anymore. More power to government would allow it to restrain the population, and laws would reflect need and not want. Individuals would not be allowed to make some of their decisions for themselves.
Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer.
Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.
Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.
Business will mostly end . Manufacture is allowed only for well argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations.
Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.
Mass immigration is terminated.
“The biggest threat to life is too much life,” Linkola has famously said. Expressing sentiments similar to those from Ted Kaczinski, Linkola says that industrialization has been a disaster for planet Earth and its inhabitants. “The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness — even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks,” he writes.
“Employment isn’t a good reason enough to explain some projects that are going on. We could employ all the people in Finland and over the world to dig a tunnel under the ground to China. The problem isn’t about employment and unemployment, the question is, is it mindless, unnecessary or harmful. Unemployment is always better than doing harmful work.”
Not a fan of the inclusive society, which he sees as conducive to both growth and lowered quality of humankind, Linkola dislikes liberal democracy. “The US symbolizes the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom,” he writes.
Expandable polystyrene (EPS) is a petroleum-based product that is frequently used for food packaging purposes. This material is currently non-recyclable and non-biodegradable (i.e., unable to decay into constituent substances). Because of its inability to decompose, food service EPS waste is consuming an ever-increasing amount of space within landfill facilities. Moreover, EPS waste products are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public, as well as the ecosystem, for reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) EPS litter is capable of lasting indefinitely within the urban landscape, thereby contributing to urban blight; 2) EPS that enters the ocean, through both direct and indirect means, deteriorates the quality of ocean waters and adjacent beach areas, which in turn endangers public safety, discourages tourism, and jeopardizes the local economy which depends on tourist trade; and 3) EPS threatens the fragile ecological balance as marine and terrestrial wildlife often perish after ingesting EPS products.
Hmmmm, this doesn’t sound like a beneficial product. Why is it permitted?
Some speculate that because EPS merely breaks down into smaller pieces, rather than its constituent parts, that EPS litter in land and marine environments may actually persist for thousands of years.
For that amount of long-term harm, someone must be making a lot of money.
Alternative products, which are biodegradable, reusable and/or recyclable, are readily available at reasonable cost. Research to date indicates that alternative products cost an additional one to five cents per unit.
Oh good! One to five cents per unit. Good job making money from poisoning the environment needed to sustain life. That’s smart thinking the stockholders can all appreciate!