I have a feeling that the suicide would be unnecessary - somebody’s going to get the environmentalist before he gets everyone else. They do outnumber him a bit.
But yeah, this line of thought does sort of call for mass murder.
The earth certainly doesn’t need saving, it’s been going on its merry way for over 4 billions years, and what we do is quite irrelevant to whether or not it continues to orbit around the earth.
Now perhaps mankind needs to mitigate its own collective behavior a bit, in order to preserve an environment that mankind can live in.
But if mankind fails at that, and wipes itself out, the earth will do just hunky-dory, and most evidence we were ever here will be gone in 20 million years, or even less. New and interesting species will evolve to take the place of those no longer present.
I know that island, smart folks, who continually get pissed on by lawyers from DC and courts in California.
So, are you saying that you would agree with the island’s “smart folks”, that environmentalists should off themselves?
How are they being “pissed on by lawyers from DC, and courts in California”?
So far the people from this island benefit from big oil revenues; they pay no state income tax, and they support mining and logging in the state.
Also, they support drilling for oil on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR).
The “smart folks”, by and large, tend to believe that the earth’s resources are endless, and they get upset when anyone disagrees with their perception, hence the reason for their hatred of environmentalists.
Walking into the soylent green factory would be more sustainable than committing suicide at home.
As far as our resource depletion, I don’t really value nature in and of itself. I don’t think we should contribute to animal suffering but as far as resource depletion, meh. The nature of earth is change. Oxygen wasn’t always part of our atmosphere, it took a billion years for that to happen. So if we use up resource XYZ that doesn’t mean we should kill ourselves.
Besides we mostly worry about resource depletion because of how it will affect our lifestyle and ability to survive. Suicide would be counterproductive.
A much better solution would be for all the people who are thinking thoughts like ‘mass suicide would solve overpopulation’ to instead get together and support massive subsidies for R&D and mass production for sustainable living.
We could live on a much smaller % of our natural resources with a few changes. We’d have to become vegans who live in multi-generational houses and use public transit. But it is possible.
Heh, given THAT option, I daresay most would choose suicide.
That is the impression that I get. I say that because if it’s true that environmentalist truly care about the planet and truly believed that humans are what’s wrong with the environment, like they say they do, they would commit suicide. :rolleyes:If they were extremely militant/psycho about it, they would commit mass murder than commit suicide.:smack:
I say this post is a joke that no one understood because a so called environmentalist came out a couple of weeks ago that made the very statement that we need to off the current population in order to protect the planet.:eek: That environmentalist, i assume, is Colorado state university professor Philip Cafaro.
He wrote the following:
“Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.”
Last time I checked, there was only 2 ways to reduce the current population: murder and suicide. :(So yes now we have environmentalist proposing mass murder, but unfortunately not suicide. Por Qua?
Perhaps some environmentalist believe other people are the problem and not themselves.:mad:
I think its also interesting that a lot of people quote Africa, Latin America and Asia as “the overpopulation problem”, when Africans and L.Americans produce less CO2 emission than then the US or Europe. China, Russia and India produce the same or less than the US. But both China and India have about 3 times as many people as the US each. Also, the US is the greatest consumer of any resources. So how do they figure that overpopulation is the problem and not the United States?
It wasn’t a joke, just a thought experiment.
There is a third way. :eek:
Another way is natural attrition through birth control.
I was thinking that guns with bullets are so 20th century. What about something that disrupted brain waves?
And this line of thought
Hmm I was thinking whether not having children was the best you could do for Earth. I don’t think it can sustainably support 6 billion people.