Environmentalists’ Marching Orders for Human Extinction
Posted by ZenRoy 6 years, 8 months ago to Government
I found this to be an interesting read, thought others may do so as well.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Seems so simple. One eats; one lives with one less meal. One creates a meal; one can eat, or one can trade for something worth a meal.
I must have missed the chapter where one plays, but one eats anyhow.
I have no idea what these other responsibilities you assign to the whims of conservatives, but if one gets to pick (buying, eating, infusing, aggressing, gambling, fucking, teasing, saying, etc), one gets to live with the consequences of ones own choices. Anything else is a state-led menagerie. NO FREEDOM CAN EVER COME WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENT OUTCOME...EVER.
With ALL Freedom comes responsibility, or the system fundamentally fails. If Ayn didn't say this, she failed.
CG is apoplectic now, seeking the socialist version of this fundamental assertion.
I dare the entirety of the site to refute this simple assertion.
Conservative statists tell us we have duties to 'society' in exchange for its gifts allowing us some freedoms, such as the ones who have told us we have a duty to be conscripted in the military and serve society as a price of being allowed to be "free". Those who do that are tribalists with no concept of reason and egoism as the basis of natural rights to freedom. We hear their "responsibility" (duty) rhetoric constantly. It does not mean that individuals are responsible for their own lives, thoughts and actions. To the extent they appeal to that it's a vicious package deal.
In my world, that person is responsible, and must take care of the mess, step back in their lives, and rebuild.
In your scenario, what happens?
Children have fewer freedoms because they are irresponsible. When one gets the freedom to decide what to do with your money, and one:
- Invests it wisely,
- Buys a sports car,
- Gambles it away,
- Spends it all on drugs,
that one takes responsibility for the consequences of the decision, not everyone else via social programs.
Same goes for applying oneself in school, eating, shooting someone. Without complimentary responsibility, freedom is a disastrous childish notion.
It's a fine line. Clearly some people who would impose do it under the guise of assigning responsibility.
Eco-fascists, eco-nazis, eco-socialists, eco-freaks, viros -- anything that withholds respect from their misanthropic nihilism posturing as moral idealism.
I think they have. It's the Malthusian question. So far we've escaped the Malthusian trap by increasing production. We're causing global warming and mass-extinction event, but maybe technology will deal with the effects of those things. I actually suspect they will. The more of us there are, though, the harder it is for us not to make a mess for one another. It seems to me there need to be vehicles that make people pay for their own mess, and hopefully market forces would take care of it. Right now we tax work and give tax breaks for kids.
If people could be freer and more educated, that tends to cut the birth rate. How to make people freer, of course, is the whole thing. Humans freely pursuing happiness is the only reason the environment matters.
Femi-fascists better? Whatever. I'm easy.
Second if a premise is made on a subject on which the premise has no bearing I will ignore it. Which I did.
Third with the clarification that individual choice is the the first, and correct approach for everything I think we are on the same page in any meaningful way that will count.
See also the report from the Heartland Institute on how Greenpeace works.
Authors are Patrick Moore a Greenpeace founder, and Willie Soon who was smeared by the NYT about a year ago.
From the summary-
" Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:
Invent an environmental problem which sounds plausible. Provide anecdotes in support with emotional imagery.
Invent a simple solution which sounds plausible and emotionally appealing, but is unlikely to be implemented.
Pick an enemy and blame them for obstructing the solution. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.
Dismiss any alternative solutions to your problem as completely inadequate. "
See- heartland.org/
or to download the report-
heartland.org/publications-resources/...
I think that all of this social programming is done so that humans and animals are made to be indistinguishable. We are to elevate dogs (and cats, rats, pigs, horses ...) to have the same value and respect as human beings. But the real program is to devalue humans to the level of dogs ... and horses ... and other animals that are "put down" when the need arises.
When I hear these monsters spouting their nonsense regarding the good in the elimination of the Human Race, what I see is the rot in their core -- they are displaying their self-hatred.
Of all the different species, the diversity between individuals within the human species is the greatest. And it is this vast spectrum that showcases the huge middle -- the rather bland -- that would be perfectly happy to be fed and entertained ... and that far left end of the spectrum populated by the dolts. At the far right of the curve reside that statistically small set of individuals whose creativity, vision, ambition and intellect propels them, in context of a relatively free society where free markets are allowed to operate, to the stratosphere of success. Some people, in the middle or perhaps even a bit offset to the right, see this success as illuminating their own shortcomings. Instead of taking part in being lifted by the advances of their superiors, their resentment takes the form of envy-intoxication. They choose to speak and act in a manner that would denigrate the entire species, when in fact, they are the very self-loathing cancer that the world would be better off without.
Every living creature follows its own nature to live. Animals routinely savage each other as part of their nature, and no one calls them "arrogant". They do not have rights, which is moral concept for rational beings. Rights do not come from emotions. Man's domination of nature, following his nature to use his rational mind to alter his environment in order to live is not a metaphysical "arrogance".
Denouncing mankind as such as morally inferior to wild animals is disgusting misanthropic nihilism. No other species can be "wise" at all, let alone the wisest on the planet. None of us live to be "beneficial" to nature, which is the lowest -- viro -- form of altruism.
Ayn Rand gave her characteristically principled, philosophically moral answer to the misanthropic nature-worshipers in her 1971 "The Anti-lndustrial Revolution", reprinted in the anthology Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.
But the viros didn't need modern tyrants to tell them they wanted absolute power. The modern viro movement rose politically out of the New Left of the 1960s. Before they changed their name to "Environmentalist movement" in the early 1970s they called themselves the "Ecology movement".
The American public didn't know what "ecology" meant or why they should identify with it. But the viro leaders knew the intellectual tradition they came from. The ecology movement was founded in 1860s Germany by Ernst Haeckel, an Hegelian biologist who coined the term "ecology". He wanted individuals and our values to be subservient to "ecosystems". The ecologists lived in compulsive fear that man was destroying the earth, with a primary hand-wringer being loss of the soil to erosion.
The political expression was to be rule by "scientists" whose "expert" permission was required for all individual action -- just as today the viros demand that everything be regulated in advance with permission required from permanent bureaucracies, with Nature as the standard superseding individual values and freedom.
That was the modern viros' source for their disgusting misanthropic evil proclaiming humans to be "arrogant" for daring to put our own values above raw nature, and their immoral imperative that we strive to "leave no footprint" on the earth -- they reject man as the source of moral value and reject the moral necessity that man reshape his environment to further his own life: Animals can routinely brutally savage each other as their natural state, but man's nature requiring using his mind to alter the environment in order to live is to be rejected as "outside nature" and "arrogant".
Hegel's Absolute became the Ecosystem and his Organic Theory of the State became Environmentalism. The 19th and early 20th century back-to-the land German Green movement was a prominent contributor to the fascist takeover and rise of Hitler. They didn't need 21st century "globalist" tyrants to tell them to seize absolute power.
Load more comments...