Quote:
Originally Posted by Plethon
However, I cannot accept any philosophy which wants to put nature above human life. Here lies one of the traps of the over-population agenda. Who is to say that some people are superfluous and others aren't? It is ethically unacceptable. As for sick freaks like Pentti Linkkola, although they claim that they speak in the name of nature, in fact their views show that they are precisely products of the modern technologicfal civilization: namely, they think that there is a purely technical solution to the problem as they see it, as there is a "technical" solution to everything. They want to reduce human population. How? By genocide or what? Such people should be either put into straightjacket if they endanger someone, or left as some curious exemplaries of human stupidtity to observe, like some exotic beasts.
It is precisely this false alarmism about overpopulation and similar problems that is a testimony to the presumption of the modern man, who wants to control everything and plan everything, even the things that are beyond his control. That's the tragic and grotesque side to various ecological movements: while pretending to be against modern over-technological lunacy, they are in fact part of the problem. (like Al Gore whom you mentioned)
As Gonzalvus said, their views are artificial.
I love nature, but hate Linkola and Al Gore.
|
I fully agree with the first part of your post, Plethon, which is why I left it out in the quote.
I will address everything else in order.
You pose the question: who is to say some (or which) people are superfluous. I do not support Linkola's idea of government, but I do very much agree with his analysis of the world and society we live in. There is a small catch here - if enough people would know that what Linkola tries to tell us about nature is true, there would be no need for a fascistic government or the absurd "green police" he talks about. People do simply not care enough and this enrages him, which holds, again, many similarities to how we nationalists are enraged by "political correctness", immigration and the public's obvious denial of facts. Do some people here on Stirpes not advocate fascism to solve this? I cannot say I agree with them, but I do say that their thinking is a complete analogy to Pentti Linkola's. Thus, if you call Linkola (or everybody else who thinks similarly) a sick freak, be consistent - there are many sick freaks on this board, following your reasoning. You do not agree with them when it comes to solving the problem - neither do I, but you do acknowledge that their analysis is a sound one.
What you say about controlling and planning, which modern man is obsessed with, I again agree fully. But there is a small catch here as well, the way I see it: the more advanced the technology, the more planning (dividing of labour, specializing etc.) is required. We needed no planning while we didn't have buldozers, airplanes and the like, when technology and tools were still simple enough for a single individual to process, but current technology is far, far too complex for that. It is the same with society. Still, I do NOT suggest planning, at least not in the way you have described. Planning, in my book, means not planning by government, but "self-censorship", so to say (a clumsy name - Gonzalvus' "spontaneus implementation" is better). People need to understand that fishing single handedly with a hook or harpoon to feed your own family is not the same as hauling tonnes of fish out of the sea in a matter of hours, yet they do not. I see here another analogy. When I discuss matters of mixed race couples (or everything that has to do with "purity" - of race, culture, language, breed, ... etc.), everybody tells me: "it is only natural that things mix". Of course it is, and it is only natural that man does to nature what he does now. The only problem lies not in the principle (activity, process), but in the extent. If we had tools of far lesser power, we would need no regulating ourselves. If we had not developed transport into what it is, there would have been no problem whatsoever with either nature or immigration. If one single negro decides to ride a camel from the Sahara to Slovenia and have a child with a local blonde, BIG DEAL! 10000000 years will pass before another one has the same idea. But I have much, on the other hand, against masses of negroes comeing here and calling themselves "Slovenians".
People need to separate quality from quantity. There is nothing wrong with WHAT we do, it is HOW MUCH we do it, crudely said. Nationalism and ecology will both be better off.
I hope you understand fully what I tried to say, else, I will be glad to debate with you further, Plethon
