One could be forgiven for dismissing calls to eradicate the human race as the ravings of the extreme fringe of the environmentalist movement. But look a little closer and you might be alarmed.
A common theme runs through the mainstream climate change movement and whilst the details are usually veiled some of the leading figures have spelled out the end game in meticulous detail. I'm talking about top brass at the IPCC, world renowned experts and advisors to government.
The basic plan is to somehow "thin out" the global population by 80% and subject the survivors to a one world totalitarian eco regime. Obama science czar John Holdren advocates forced sterilisation and abortions and drugging our water supplies to achieve this. Others have advocated attacking cities with chemical, biological and thermonuclear weapons.
Unfortunately this kind of nihilism and insanity isn't confined to a few senile eccentrics in the halls of academia. Beneath the surface of the mainstream environmentalist and animal rights movements lies the darkest of impulses and motivations: the glorification of infanticide and genocide, militarism, dictatorship etc. is anyone not seriously alarmed by this stuff?
When and where did Holdren state the above? Who is advocating the use of CBRNs to thin the human population?
If abortion was universally and effectively prohibited, social welfare spending would balloon accordingly. How does a fiscal conservator reconcile their disgust with the means of abortion (and other population control measures) with the consequences of its absence? Are you not familiar with the biological definition of carrying capacity?
"President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings."
Finnish "deep ecologist" Pentti Linkola:
"He advocates eugenics, genocide, and abortion as possible means to combat overpopulation. He describes the Stalinist and Nazi massacres, as "massive thinning operations," but which have "not overturned our ethical norms". He has suggested that big cities should be attacked by "some trans-national body like the UN", with nuclear weapons or with "bacteriological and chemical attacks". Linkola has described humans as a cancer of the earth, and he desires that the human population "be reduced to about ten percent of what it is now."
Natural rights pretty much trump "act utilitarianism" - see the discussion in on government thread if you're interested.
Is ecofascism also say strict laws that do things like prohibit overfishing?
It seems like at some point certain species are tightly linked to our own survival, and without efforts to keep these species around we are going to end up suffering deeper and more troubling problems. I'm thinking species like pollinators, various bees, moths. There are other animals as simple as sardines and anchovies that fill specific niches in terms of supporting larger fish/ food chain deal along with people.
When you research your norwegian fish oil you will notice the majority if the fish sourced is often from Alaska due to overfishing. And Alaska and other fishing areas are overfished as well..
Eventually we run into these human situations where we understand if we were in similar situations we might be the ones who eat species on the brink of extinction. But in the long run, recognizing that we are in these situations should be eye opening. Maybe there is a need for ecofascism?
It's more the abstract point I'm making I would hope people recognize. At some point there are species that are directly connected to our overall survival. And without them nothing is going to matter because we will be dead.
Who knows what it will take to change the direction we are heading? As it is we already live pretentiously as consumers. Our culture, which bases freedom upon material and land means is insatiable as being hyper ambitious to the point you take advantage of loopholes and cheat is considered virtuous and Maverick.
But more importantly, the biological definition of carrying capacity is not strictly relevant here although it would seem readily applicable. The reason is that unlike other animals with relatively constant carrying capacities within a set of constant habitat parameters, human beings have the ability to vastly modify their environment as well as technologically innovate housing, fuel, and food productivity.
In effect this makes our interaction with 'carrying capacity' as a hard or reasonably hard limit not equilibrium based as it is with all other animals (i.e. there is no equilibrium around which we will revolve as the concept states is true for animals in an ecosystem). People have been complaining about population since Greece and Carthage. Furthermore there is a very possible outcome that as wealth is built in the countries currently most burdened by population expansion (China, etc) that their demographics will shift and growth will slow down and plateau.
The "theme" in the mainstream environmentalist movement is "population control" or "reduction." The IPCC reports regularly push the "problem" of population growth. A second theme is the need for an intergovernmental body with despotic powers. Read between the lines. Look at the conclusions reached by the guys I quoted. "Population control" + "intergovernmental body with vast powers" = not good.
Not entirely. When the natural rights of one are menaced by another then the victim can apply a utilitarian framework to protect himself - eg, if I kill this terrorist his wife and kids will be killed too, but it will almost certainly save the lives of dozens of my people. Utilitarianism is also the best paradigm when an overwhelming preponderance of good(or prevention of bad) can be achieved with a proportionately minimal curtailment of natural rights - ie, I'm going to forcibly detain and quarantine this guy because he's infected with the Ebola virus. Basically common sense has to be applied.
That's the point, modifying of environment. That's the crux of the argument. People as a species destroy their environment. Cities are like tumours, they grow their own blood vessels and deplete the resourses from wast areas around them.
I've posted this before and I'll post it again. We are SO fucked if our population continues to grow. I mean the concept of "natural rights" is a joke in the face of 50 BILLION people all clamoring for "natural rights". We as a planet simply do NOT have the resources to sustain a population of that size.
But you guys are all against abortion... Many Christians/Catholics are against birth control... WHAT. THE. FUCK? It doesn't make any sense to be against those things now, when the consequences of that position will manifest itself in a few generations as an entire planet on the verge of cannibalism just to feed itself.
Barring a good old fashioned Malthusian event, that's where we're headed. And I'm of the opinion that it WILL happen on it's own and not as the result of any "Eco-fascists"... Mother Nature is a bitch and has proved herself time and time again... She'll come up with something nice and decimating to our population (if we don't foolishly do it to ourselves first).
Most of us here are at least casual students of history, is that NOT the pattern?
How would YOU feed the metric shit ton of people that will be our population in two hundred years?
Methinks any help in reducing the population growth of our planet would be the position that MOST logical people on this board would hold. But instead we allow religion and "morality" and "natural rights" to cloud the issue and it will ultimately lead to our extinction... Way to think it through.
Right there with you. I've been trying to point this out a few times in different contexts here, just about every time I think about John Locke the same ideas come about.
Religions have been competing for resources in that sense too, in the form of people. And those people are taught to be fruitful. Is it such a stretch to realize that most wars and religions are in some way connected to the endeavor of expansion, acquisition of land and resources as this is God's will? If religions are like companies and people are like money to those religions, to what end?
Similar to markets and capital. After a certain point, what's the point?
We endeavor to be consumers and to drive progress.. For what? It's kinda like running as fast as you can to the finish line, where you die. Instead maybe we should enjoy the journey instead of racing.
Ideas about curing malaria by fucking up male mosquito's. Advances in Medicine, what's the point of it all if we overpopulate?
Whats the point of democracy based on Lockean ideas of expansion when there is nowhere left to expand? Without the resources our form of democracy turns into an Oligarchy, at which point there is no point in scoffing at socialism.
"The Census Bureau forecasts that non-Hispanic whites, now slightly more than 60 percent of the population, will fall below 50 percent in 2043. Within 30 years, there will cease to be a racial majority in the United States."
Not mine. I'm just a tired old nativist. You can keep your green toys. Why should I invest in something I won't see a return on?
Um... Who gives a fuck about which "racial majority" has the most people in the future? If I read your position right (and I'm not certain that I am understanding you correctly, I certainly hope that I'm not), you are saying that if YOUR offspring are not the "majority race" (a status that YOU happen to enjoy right now simply by chance), then you don't really care what happens??? Because you won't see a "return" on it?
Please tell me you are joking...
First of all, as long as you HAVE DECEDENTS, you have a "return"...
Second, if the world population becomes "less white", so what? We'd have a more robust population with a wonderful variety of traits that we can all benefit from? From better immune systems, to higher intelligence, to more diverse languages and culture?
Third, the statistic you cite is for the United States... I would submit for your consideration that our "population issues" are more in India, China, Africa, etc... Not saying that we don't have an IMMIGRATION problem here with an undocumented Hispanic population sucking up resources while not contributing, but that issue pales in comparison to the birth rate in India from a GLOBAL perspective...
I agree completely. People consistently underestimate just how robust our planet is. They treat the earth like it's some fucking delicate porcelain doll. The reality is that mother nature has an uncanny ability to regulate itself. If any one population gets too out of control, one way or another, it gets dealt with.