Saturday, 4 June 2016
Classic Rant: Back to The Cave Thinking: Want Proof?
Let me begin by emphatically repeating that I'm not a "climate change denier". I'm quite certain that climate change is happening. I'm unwilling to give an absolute cause for its happening quite yet, but I'm willing to concede that human industry has played a role in this climate change (or in accelerating it).
What that doesn't mean, however, is that I accept the proposals of the Environmentalist Left as to what to do about it. You see, if someone tells me my water-pipes are rusted, I might believe them or not; if they showed me sufficient evidence, I wouldn't doubt it. But that doesn't mean that if they then tell me my only option is to never have running water again, I don't care whether they were right in the analysis, their proposed solution is moronic.
And arguably, malevolent. You see, time was I'd be talking about the Radical Environmentalist Left, but in this day and age, it seems that the old radicals are the mainstream of that movement. Consider the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, an extremely revered environmentalist thinktank, who are far from some "lunatic fringe". They have worked with Al Gore and were part of the team that comprised the International Panel on Climate Change that won the Nobel Prize in 2007.
In a classic example of "Back to the Cave" mentality, they have published a paper now, hailing Genghis Khan as a Eco-hero for having slaughtered 40 million people. If that's what the "mainstream" is presenting as its "solutions", I guess that "radicals" in environmentalism these days would be those arguing for total human extinction.
"Oh, come on, Pundit", you tell me, "the report wasn't saying WE should kill 40 million people; it was just a study of the climate impact that had, right?"
Well, in fact, some of them are advocating for killing far more humans than that. Eric Pianka, an eminent biologist, made a speech in front of the Texas Academy of Science where he suggested the extermination of 90% of human population through airborne viruses; that would be a lot more than 40 million, closer to 5.5 Billion. He was applauded for that position by his peers. Later, when a media shitstorm ensued, he tried to backtrack and claim he was taken out of context; but even then he couldn't resist showing his true position: "I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us... We need to make a transition to a sustainable world".
So there you have it. "Sustainability" is, just as I mentioned in my "back to the cave" rant, a code-word for mass human extermination.
This is not anything recent or new, either. John Holdren published a 1977 book called "Ecoscience" where he advocated the imposition of a "planetary regime" to enact such "sustainability" measures as forced mass sterilizations to cull the human surplus, as well as drugging the water supply.
Crazy fringe nutbar, right? Back in 1977 his views might have made him so; but today? He's the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; or in other words, the Obama Administration's "Science Czar". Jesus Christ, no wonder the "new world order" conspiracy theorists go apeshit!
Let's not forget such lovelies as the publicly-funded British Lobbying group 10:10, which made a series of commercials last year where children who didn't agree with lowering their carbon emissions were brutally murdered. That was stupid and in bad taste, and of course the people making the video did not really believe that those who refuse to go along with authoritarian programs to oblige people to be "sustainable" should be killed, right? Especially not children. Except of course that the general consensus in the "new mainstream" of the Environmentalist Left seems to be that human population has to be reduced to about five hundred million people, and that the "crisis" of climate change means it has to happen really fast. So how exactly would that happen without killing people; except of course by sustainability measures itself killing people.
There'd be no need to actually press a little button to blow up children; you just have to impose the "sustainability measures" that these assholes want! If we become "sustainable" in our farming practices (which really means basically cutting out all of the advances of the Green Revolution and giving the environmentalists their revenge for Malthus having been proved wrong), it will mean the death of BILLIONS of people as food becomes unreachable for them due to distance or cost (we produce less food, the price of food will skyrocket).
But, in the end, the 10:10 commercial was nothing more than stupid propaganda (and badly thought out at that). I would much rather bring your attention to the new model: "planned-opolis". Brought to you by the Forum for the Future, a supposedly "moderate" organization meant to "work with leaders from the public sector and business to create a green, fair and prosperous world". No fly-by-night organization, the Forum provides masters courses in " Leadership for Sustainable Development", and publishes the magazine "Green Futures", and has partnerships with over 90 organizations in the public and private sector. They recently produced a series of commercials of visions of how cities could be run and maintained in a "sustainable" future, in the format of little cartoons that showed city life in 2040.
Among these was "Planned-opolis", which detailed how car ownership would be limited to the ultra-rich, energy use at home would be strictly rationed, meat would be forbidden or unattainable (again, except to the ultra-wealthy and powerful; at least they're being honest about who they expect will have to be the new serfs and who will get to keep having business as usual), people would have "calorie cards" limiting how much they were allowed to eat, children would be assigned careers by the authoritarian government and no one would have free choice of where to work, and where those who resist these authoritarian policies will be forced into ghettos. I kid you not. Watch the video. And its not like any of the others in the series are really better; each of them demonstrates the kind of authoritarian social control and drastic reduction of quality of life that would be needed to take that step back into primitivism that they call "sustainability" (save the first one which is meant to show you the terrible evils of market capitalism). And remember, this video is them TRYING TO SELL YOU ON IT. They're trying to put the best face they can on "Sustainability" while still making a realistic projection. Imagine what the fucking reality would be, then!
So again, no, I do not question science's diagnosis of the climate; I do heavily question "Environmentalist" Activists' proposed "solutions" (which often masquerade as science).
Remember, "Sustainability" is NOT a true solution; it is a failure from the start, because it posits a world where humanity collectively gives up, and voluntarily chooses to step back toward primitivism. You head that way, and the end result is a dying humanity returning to the caves it once evolved out of. That is all these assholes can offer us, because while they "believe in the science" to tell them what the problem is (of course, they believed in the "problem" decades before the science could actually confirm it), they have a fundamental lack of faith in science, progress, civilization, or humanity itself when it comes to being able to innovate REAL solutions that do not require the end of our civilization, mass human extermination, and a drastic reduction in the average human quality of life in order to bring them about.
Currently Smoking: Castello 4k Collection Canadian + Image Latakia
(Originally posted February 1, 2011)