“Approximately six billion people need to die. Preferably today.”
Once again, the real ugly head of the environmentalist movement rears its head and that quote, found over at Treehugger, lets the mask fall again. Heck, even the NY Times ran an Op-Ed with the title of “Would human extinction be a tragedy?” with the overarching environmental theme that humans are ‘unnatural’ so our demise is a positive rather than a negative given, according to their doxology, that we are both oppressors and destroyers and that “Nature” and the planet would be far better without us.
The original post was “You look scared. Are you scared?“:
Despite progress on many fronts, climate commentators and activists are increasingly owning up to their fears…But lately I’ve noticed a slight change in tone: environmental activists, scientists, commentators and thought leaders are increasingly willing to admit that they are scared. James Murray over at Business Green appears to be noticing the same thing. In a moving, if somewhat depressing, commentary on the state of the movement, Murray suggests that the scale of the challenges we face meant that we were always going to reach this point. He was just hoping we’d be a little further along on solving these problems before things got scary…
And it is clear that we Normals, who know that on an epochal scale our climate has changed many times with far more temperature variability than the last 50 years (heh!), are the ones they finger as being the problem because, well, we aren’t buying into their religious fervor. Sure, climate changes but all one has to do is look at the actual reported (re: unaltered) temp date versus the predictive results of all those differing climate models that don’t match reality and one SHOULD be going “er, hold on here”. I’m in the camp that they’re using the issue to move us to a one world government (hey, not a conspiracy theory – their words) that would take absolute control to prevent that 2 degree crisis that will doom the world.
The rest of the quote makes it clear (emphasis mine) and remember, there are only 7.7 billion people living right now:
Am I scared: yes.
The entities most capable of taking powerful action to steer economies and cultures that can alleviate the suffering are governments and major corporations. One is motivated by votes and the other by money. In neither case is the actual outcome of those actions a major part of what motivates the decisions. Positive outcomes are good but not the primary motivator in my estimation.
In short, we are screwed because the actors that can have the most effect aren’t acting, or aren’t acting on the information that is germane. While what we really need are immediate actions that will have long-lasting effects decades and centuries down the line, what we get are actions that affect this year’s, next year’s and the year’s after that balance sheets, and are most likely to yield a profit. Or worse yet, the next iteration of the government could take a completely different tack on the climate and undo the efforts of previous administrations: thanks a bunch, Trump. Good job, Pruitt.
What is really needed:
Approximately six billion people need to die. Preferably today. Yes, that is incredibly harsh and no, I’m not actually wishing for that. But in order to get things very thoroughly in hand in the kind of time frame governments and corporations can actually pay attention for, that’s what it would take.
Fossil fuels need to go. Preferably today. That pretty much destroys all the economies everywhere. Oops.
Those two measures would probably bring human-source climate change to a halt, but the forces that are already changing the climate are well underway. The inertia on the global climate is immense and it would probably continue to change in ways we don’t like for a couple more decades.
“Oops” – just an oopsy. The death of almost 80% of the world’s population is a throw away line. But, in order to carry out that religious undertaking, well, omelettes and such; no big deal in the service of their higher cause. And it goes on.
At least ONE person decided to call him out – or rather, why other commenters didn’t call him out (again, my emphasis), or, more truthfully, more moral relativism (commit a horribleness and use that as a defense against the “general guilt”:
Hellprin_fan -> elhigh
The population collapse that occurs as a civilization dies of old age is at least 50 years too late. But I’m stunned that your comment hasn’t evoked outrage and shouts of “monster!”. Maybe people are more capable of considering overwhelmingly horrific ideas when the alternative is even worse.
OF course, I obliged and pointed out a parallel with someone else that did a “shrug his shoulders” over having 10s of millions of his own “citizens” deliberately killed because of a political ideology:
granitegrok -> Hellprin_fan
OK, the obligatory: “HE’S A MONSTER!!!” . As Stalin said (paraphrased) one death is a tragedy, more are a statistic”. I think billions satisfies the “more” part. 2/3rds of the current world population, for the sake of an ideology, is far more than just a statistic, especially if someone else has picked you as being part of that “lottery winner” loser superset.Six billion. Today. He wrote it as if he meant it yet doesn’t wish for it. Cognitive Dissonance. Or CYA – take your pick because MONSTER!
And then the Progressive / Socialism / Collectivist “we’re ALL in this together and we have ALL sinned against GAIA” pops its head into the discussion. This is a very important point that we must fight against as it is the essence of Collectivism: if one sins, all are responsible. Not only now, but from anytime in the past and certainly going forward into the future. THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL, therefore there is no Individualism – and therefore, no Individual Freedom. You are ONLY what the Collective allows you to be – and fundamentally shreds one of the founding pillars of our Republic. Individuals are EVIL and any such (scare quotes) “freedom” is perceived to only cause harm against the Collective.
Like this:
Hellprin_fan -> granitegrok
How would you describe someone who exterminates most species on the planet? Because that’s where we’re headed. Yes, it’s monstrous to think of killing 6 billion people, but I’m not convinced that all of us rolling along with our genocidal life styles aren’t worse.
And that said is one of the reasons why I keep going back – I can’t seem to leave our foundational Principles go undefended. No, I may not be the most articulate in doing so but I (and the other Groksters) refuse to give up this philosophical battlefield because of GRANDSON.
granitegrok -> Hellprin_fan
Sorry but I don’t ascribe to the notion / philosophy of “collective guilt”. I should be held guilty for what I have actively done but I am in no way responsible for the actions, or guilt thereof, of others. That is between them and God (and a judge / jury if they have committed a crime).I have not committed any crime nor have most of the people that inhabit this world that @elhigh has already declared guilty.
And for the record, SMOD was unavailable for comment.
And I threw a rhetorical spinning back kick at the lout that started this whole thing off:
granitegrok -> elhigh
6 Billion, eh? I’d take the bet that there’d be a lot more of us “Normals” that are far better armed than the environmentalists that would pushing for such a MONSTROUS (see, I went there) genocide. Why are environmentalists such deathwishers (especially on others) but never want to “lead the way by example“?
And that’s the fallacy of some of these boobs – that all those 6 Billion are just going to sit calmly and go “well, I guess it’s for the Greater Good, so I’ll sacrifice myself”. Some, perhaps would. Some, especially those that ARE better armed, might well decide that we have a vote in all this and if somebody has to go, it’s gonna be the guys that agree with this monstrous notion that should go first.
At least then we’ll be rid of these yahoos that are convinced they are not only are smarter than us but certainly are moral busybodies.
I guess that would be a plus, eh?
