Furthest Right

Where The “Aspen Proposal” Goes Wrong

Humanity slowly approaches the point where we must make decisions about our future. Previously, we could just be libertarians who ignored the toxic waste getting dumped in the river so long as we personally were not downstream. Now that the polycrisis is upon us, action is required.

One reason the Left has appealed for years to intellectuals and wealthy people is that these are more aware than normal people of the burgeoning crisis. Their favorite literature covers it. The big brain magazines dwell on it. It is a way for them to seem exciting in group conversation. The Left addresses it; the Right does not, for the most part.

As a result the Left has snapped up all the bright minds, at least at first, although they seem to turn into raging Boomer Republicans around fifty once they tote up all the taxes they have paid and consider the dystopia they received in return. No one ever said democracy was committed to fair advertising.

Owing to our immersion in the new human conversation about our future, more people are paying attention to idealistic but materialistic agendas such as the Aspen Proposal which hopes to heal humanity in two centuries:

In the future:

  • We will have learned to fit in with the ecosystem.
  • By having smaller families, we will consciously and humanely reduce our population to 1 billion or fewer.
  • All our energy and food will be from sustainable sources.
  • We will have developed a steady-state, more circular economy.
  • The vast majority of the earth’s lands and oceans will be left alone, to manage themselves.
  • Our population will be dispersed on 6 continents to provide some resilience in case of a major meteor strike, pandemic or other natural catastrophe.
  • With a smaller population and a greater emphasis on resiliency, trade in commodities between continents will be greatly reduced.
  • Bounded by the overarching principle of fitting into the ecosystem and by the understanding that all humans are members of one branch of the larger tree of life, cultural diversity will be valued and encouraged.
  • Different environments will continue to stimulate a variety of appropriate technologies and customs.
  • Humans will focus on meeting their psychological needs in the ways that have proven robust over the millennia: i.e. through cultivation of relationships, art, music, humour, physical activity, meaningful work, connection with nature, spiritual exploration, etc.
  • Humans around the globe will continue to participate in the cooperative exercise of learning about ourselves, the universe, and our place in it.

Like Trump, this one is a conversation starter. You have to begin with subtlety and far removed from the ultimate conclusion or the human animal panics.

Learning to Fit in with the Ecosystem: everyone likes this idea, but it means living in single-family homes with big yards and burning all of our waste while not taking too much in terms of natural resources i.e. the death of consumerism or constantly buying new stuff to fill the void in our soul.

Having Smaller Families: actually, we want some to have larger families and some to have no families; our problem is one of people quality. This question, like the tax question, cannot be separated from eugenics. We do not need the Hungarian plan of paying people to have more children; we need to stop taxing our most promising people so that they have more children naturally.

Sustainable Sources: buzzword overkill here means they want less glyphosate and petrochemical fertilizers and more natural farming, which is great if you want to pay five times what you do now for food, which is how it was back before we developed giant factory farms. Then again, if everyone has a lawn, they can at least have chickens.

Steady-State, Circular Economy: the “circular economy” is another buzzword for recycling and socialism, and “steady-state” means no inflation which requires zero socialism, so this is just gibberish. Everyone wants a society that does not change over the generations and the only way to do that is to stop the bureaucracy and its entitlement state. That means no wealth transfer policies at all and letting “the poor” (mentally deranged) simply starve.

Half Earth: when they say they want the “vast majority of the Earth’s lands and oceans will be left alone, to manage themselves” they are talking about Half Earth. No disagreement there!

Overpopulation: with a “smaller population…trade in commodities between continents will be greatly reduced” or you could just stop legally protecting the unions that sent the jobs and farms offshore. Raising costs means the labor goes to the third world.

Cultural Diversity: they seem to be hinting at the idea that with less intercontinental travel, we will have actual diversity, which requires ending polyethnicism or multiculturalism and instead choosing ethno-nationalism or one ethnic group per nation. Jews in Israel, Germans in Germany, Japanese in Japan, Afrikans in Afrika, Amerinds in Mongolia.

Different Environments: they are saying here that each ethnic-cultural-religious — we have to assume that they are not proper ethnats, racialists, or ethnicists like myself — will adapt to its own environment and make its own technologies, then teach them or sell them to others.

Psychological Needs: when they call for “relationships, art, music, humour, physical activity, meaningful work, connection with nature, spiritual exploration” they are speaking of (1) culture first and (2) antiwork, meaning a reduction in the red tape, make-work, wealth transfer to the impoverished, affirmative action, etc.

Cooperative Exercise: the talk of humans “around the world” continuing to participate in human development is a nice way of saying that we focus on finally maturing as a species and talking our perpetual failing, narcissism and hubris.

In other words, they want exactly what we have now but with more focus on the environment. We already have massive socialism, we are heading toward saving more land for nature, and international instability has killed off a lot of the international shipping.

What they want to do is for us to focus explicitly on these things and make them stated values instead of unstated assumptions as they were with our intelligentsia and leaders in the past.

While their statement makes a good start, a more far-reaching view says that with ethnonationalism and strict capitalism, we can eliminate the growth mania required by socialism and diversity.

If we are serious about the environment (no, mostly) we need to cut the international travel, commerce, and migration and in fact reverse it through remigration.

They are afraid that it is too early to come out and say that, but it is interesting to see even the hippie end of our society tend toward belatedly recognizing the obvious fatality of diversity and socialism.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn