First, there's that ubiquitous use of the word "we," which is never you and me, it's always government. To be sure, it will require heavy-handed government intervention into the private sector, a fundamental rework of every facet of peoples' lives, and a substantial reduction in the standard of living of everyone, in order to achieve environmental nirvana. By "substantial," we mean grass huts and berries.
Second, it asks a false binary question: "Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?" The question actually is, how much pollution is acceptable as we live our lives? Because that's what we have to do, no matter how clean we try make things. Pollution will never be zero, so the real issue is how much is acceptable. Therefore, everyone is in favor of some pollution.
There is a growing clamor in the environmentalist movement to reduce fossil fuel usage to zero by 2050. In order to achieve this, oppressive measures will need to be undertaken, and those measures are not restricted to lifestyles.
Clearly the world's population in 2050, projected to be 9.6 billion, cannot exist without fossil fuels. A substantial reduction of the world's population must be achieved. Thus, many organizations are advocating universal birth control, but even that will not be enough.
At least there are some environmentalists who are being honest about their goals, a 90% reduction in humanity from present levels. Can you imagine, a population of 700 million? There are actually people out there who want to eliminate billions of people for the sake of the environment, and want to empower governments to achieve such a goal!
And yet, 700 million people still will pollute, so even for these extremists, some amount of pollution is still acceptable. Enter VHEMT, which is calling for our extinction. The only zero-pollution people in the debate, a perspective the even the most ardent environmentalist would recoil from, these are the true believers, willing to die for their god. At least they are all-in. You know, I think they should take the first step themselves to demonstrate their commitment to their ideals.
So the second question in the picture is, "Why not make the environment the economy?" In light of the above discussion, we can see this question is nonsensical. Setting aside the fact that "clean energy" is economically unfeasible, we can see from the above discussion that it isn't even the real solution environmentalists are seeking.
However, you can be sure that if the world's government totally bought in to the idea of windfarms and solar energy and then took over the entirety of the population's choices about how they will lead their lives, they would soon see they could not stop there. VHEMT's ideas might start looking good, and then who can stop them?
That is the problem with these government lovers, they invest totally in government's ability to do good, which eventually leads to the possibility of going the whole way. But you can be sure that someone will stop and say, "hey, why should we wipe out everybody? We are rich and we control everything. What a shame to waste all that wealth and have no one to enjoy it." Thus, utopia is achieved, and it only cost a few billion lives.
It is clear that the typical environmentalist has not thought through the ramifications of their ideology. I suspect many of them have good intentions, although there is no reason to dismiss the idea that the real agenda at work is the destruction of capitalism, ala Naomi Klein.
These people really don't like humans. They're anti-life. The love abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics, though they will never admit it. For many of them, the agenda is far reaching and fundamental. They don't like freedom, choice, prosperity, or happiness. Theirs is a utopian vision, where everyone but them is out.
Welcome to the new order, paradise on earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment