If you're like me, you like humans. I consider myself something of a mismisanthrope- I want people, in general, to be happy. I want society to flourish.
Of course, this being the case, I want to do my part to protect it, and to bring it into an even better place than the one it's in now (and I love the world today. It kicks the **** out of any other world ever). There are a lot of threats facing it, and not the least of these is one you've all heard of- Global Warming.
I'm no scientist. I'm no expert. But I do know- and I assume you all agree with me here, if not we can debate it- that there is a serious consensus in the scientific community that the big GW is real, man-made, and is going to cause some serious ****ing problems. Like, Holland-underwater, Farmland now unfarmable, lots of chaos and bad **** happening. I don't think anyone except the real radicals are saying that it'll end society as we know it, but it will harm it. The steps we need to take to lessen the impact of the inevitable blow are well-known. We need to cut back on the use of fossil fuels, and reduce our carbon footprints. Sadly enough for the libertarians out there, the market isn't going to do this for us. The government needs to step in and set up regulations, limits etc. This is going to mean that we all have to cut back and make our lives a little less pleasant, so that we and our children can live in a happier, less-****ed-up future. It also means that we need to *****-slap China and tell them how it is, but that can wait until we've got our own **** in order.
But wait. The government isn't going to get our **** in order. Why? Because the people don't want it. Why don't the people want it? Surely they can see that this is a pressing issue?
I'll tell you why there's no popular support for the efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. It's because the cause is championed and made up of environmentalists. And their cause as a whole- as the average American knows instinctively- is idiotic, trivial, and not to be countenanced in these tough economic times.
These "earth lovers" love the earth to the point of hating man. Man, the only rational being in the known universe. Christianity teaches that the world was made for him. Even if this isn't true, it echoes an ideal that we live out every day- **** THE WORLD. THE WORLD IS OURS. WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT WITH IT. We kill and eat the lesser species of animal because eating plants would be kinda boring. The environmentalists wacko enough to be vegetarian are living in total denial of human history and popular consensus. The smarter ones cover up their misanthropy by saying that they're preserving the earth for future generations. This rings true- until you think about it.
I implore you- look, really look, at environmentalist causes. They want to preserve endangered species.
Why?
There isn't any good reason. The only value we- as rational beings- get from them is that of aesthetic pleasure. In other words, they're pretty to look at. Some of them aren't even that- environmentalists just want to preserve them because they have a full blown case of OCD that compels them to preserve species in an unnatural way. Weak creatures have always gone extinct. They're going extinct faster now because we're the best around and we need all the room we can get. Why should we preserve them? Is it really that important that we have black rhinos around outside of zoos? I've never derived any benefit from black rhinos. Few people have, I should think, outside of nature-loving rich kids with too much time on their hands and no need for actual jobs. Or maybe there's a legitimate benefit to be had from them, and we should keep them around; even if that's the case, it's not the case for most endangered species."Future generations" don't need the species, for ****'s sake! They'll be fine without them!
You know what society would derive a benefit from? That wasted money going to
any one of the worthy and strapped-for-cash government programs that could use it. It's not just endangered animals; it's virtually every aspect of the "green" movement except for GW. Recycling? OK. Sure. A worthy enough cause. Same with industrial pollution. But they're dealt with as if they're every bit as important as GW, when in fact they're relatively well dealt with as is, and GW is picking up steam like a goddamn freight train. Drilling in the ANWR? Why, let's pitch a fit about it and use up all of our political credibility to save the ****ing tundra from being made useful! Why on earth would we try to cut down on oil consumption so that we didn't need to drill instead?
The environmentalists have somehow taken Global Warming and lumped it into a single issue, along with all of their other silly, stupid, ultra-liberal issues. If we want to stop it, we have to also sign on to stopping logging in the Amazon and every other stupid thing that goes under the label of "environmental." Is it any wonder, then, that the issue has been shelved and ignored, considered "yesterday's news"?
We need to take it back and show it for what it is- a practical, social, and economic problem that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later in order to cut costs in the long run. Becoming politicized was the worst thing that ever happened to the efforts to slow down or Global Warming.
Of course, this being the case, I want to do my part to protect it, and to bring it into an even better place than the one it's in now (and I love the world today. It kicks the **** out of any other world ever). There are a lot of threats facing it, and not the least of these is one you've all heard of- Global Warming.
I'm no scientist. I'm no expert. But I do know- and I assume you all agree with me here, if not we can debate it- that there is a serious consensus in the scientific community that the big GW is real, man-made, and is going to cause some serious ****ing problems. Like, Holland-underwater, Farmland now unfarmable, lots of chaos and bad **** happening. I don't think anyone except the real radicals are saying that it'll end society as we know it, but it will harm it. The steps we need to take to lessen the impact of the inevitable blow are well-known. We need to cut back on the use of fossil fuels, and reduce our carbon footprints. Sadly enough for the libertarians out there, the market isn't going to do this for us. The government needs to step in and set up regulations, limits etc. This is going to mean that we all have to cut back and make our lives a little less pleasant, so that we and our children can live in a happier, less-****ed-up future. It also means that we need to *****-slap China and tell them how it is, but that can wait until we've got our own **** in order.
But wait. The government isn't going to get our **** in order. Why? Because the people don't want it. Why don't the people want it? Surely they can see that this is a pressing issue?
I'll tell you why there's no popular support for the efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. It's because the cause is championed and made up of environmentalists. And their cause as a whole- as the average American knows instinctively- is idiotic, trivial, and not to be countenanced in these tough economic times.
These "earth lovers" love the earth to the point of hating man. Man, the only rational being in the known universe. Christianity teaches that the world was made for him. Even if this isn't true, it echoes an ideal that we live out every day- **** THE WORLD. THE WORLD IS OURS. WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT WITH IT. We kill and eat the lesser species of animal because eating plants would be kinda boring. The environmentalists wacko enough to be vegetarian are living in total denial of human history and popular consensus. The smarter ones cover up their misanthropy by saying that they're preserving the earth for future generations. This rings true- until you think about it.
I implore you- look, really look, at environmentalist causes. They want to preserve endangered species.
Why?
There isn't any good reason. The only value we- as rational beings- get from them is that of aesthetic pleasure. In other words, they're pretty to look at. Some of them aren't even that- environmentalists just want to preserve them because they have a full blown case of OCD that compels them to preserve species in an unnatural way. Weak creatures have always gone extinct. They're going extinct faster now because we're the best around and we need all the room we can get. Why should we preserve them? Is it really that important that we have black rhinos around outside of zoos? I've never derived any benefit from black rhinos. Few people have, I should think, outside of nature-loving rich kids with too much time on their hands and no need for actual jobs. Or maybe there's a legitimate benefit to be had from them, and we should keep them around; even if that's the case, it's not the case for most endangered species."Future generations" don't need the species, for ****'s sake! They'll be fine without them!
You know what society would derive a benefit from? That wasted money going to
any one of the worthy and strapped-for-cash government programs that could use it. It's not just endangered animals; it's virtually every aspect of the "green" movement except for GW. Recycling? OK. Sure. A worthy enough cause. Same with industrial pollution. But they're dealt with as if they're every bit as important as GW, when in fact they're relatively well dealt with as is, and GW is picking up steam like a goddamn freight train. Drilling in the ANWR? Why, let's pitch a fit about it and use up all of our political credibility to save the ****ing tundra from being made useful! Why on earth would we try to cut down on oil consumption so that we didn't need to drill instead?
The environmentalists have somehow taken Global Warming and lumped it into a single issue, along with all of their other silly, stupid, ultra-liberal issues. If we want to stop it, we have to also sign on to stopping logging in the Amazon and every other stupid thing that goes under the label of "environmental." Is it any wonder, then, that the issue has been shelved and ignored, considered "yesterday's news"?
We need to take it back and show it for what it is- a practical, social, and economic problem that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later in order to cut costs in the long run. Becoming politicized was the worst thing that ever happened to the efforts to slow down or Global Warming.
