Re: Little Rants
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:43 pm
SCIENTIST GIVEN AWARD, STANDING OVATION AFTER ANTI-HUMAN DIATRIBE
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/ ... FqGbbtjHto
“Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas, described human beings as a "scourge" on the Earth, called for a police state to ensure mandatory sterilization of all U.S. citizens, and rooted for the lethal Ebola virus to mutate into an airborne form that might kill 90 percent of the people on Earth.”
Perhaps true to some extent but only because our society is not truly functional, and the hubris of believing our technology will solve all of our problems (if only things went in favor of an idealized--dare I say "utopian"--outlook.)
When you consider that misguided ideas (such as Mao's China killing off the sparrow population to conserve grain, etc.) it seems evident the real issue is systemic to how societies allocate and use resources. With proper understanding of ecology, and a functional system of self-governing, many of societies problems would be eliminated (and yes, perhaps that would only occur if an extreme reduction of the population, which would require re-establishing a better society from out of it, is a bit like conflagration of an entire city just to establish a coffee shop where one was needed, indifferent to whatever else existed around it.) Perhaps take for example what actually happened following WW2 or any major global disruption? Did reduction in population cause greater fear and greater waste and misguided goals, which ended up devastating communities? Did starving entire populations such as what Stalin did, ultimately create resentment from competing factions, and did it ultimately weaken geopolitical goals, as surely, our society is not orchestrated and run by the same mindset that would even begin to consider this.
Moreso much of these ideas tend to already occur on their own without any intervention, and the hedonic treadmill continually reminds people why perceived "gains" are just pipe-dream fetishism. If anything such ideas when implemented teach us how terribly misguided humanity is, and only vindicate his idea, that maybe, he should likely have the odds stacked against himself and those who believe in it.
When populations are disrupted a significant value is lost, and the biggest loss is in society's inability to value the things that are actually needed, and only those incapable of being effectual in addressing the problem (because of how a society is able or willing to value such ideas,) would result in this kind of thinking, which is really no different from an angry old dude that jumps into a battle tank just to cause mayhem, or collects a basement full of weapons and decides to shoot up as many places until his time on earth has finally been extinguished.
Perhaps people are just waiting for the drain plug to be pulled?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/ ... FqGbbtjHto
“Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas, described human beings as a "scourge" on the Earth, called for a police state to ensure mandatory sterilization of all U.S. citizens, and rooted for the lethal Ebola virus to mutate into an airborne form that might kill 90 percent of the people on Earth.”
Perhaps true to some extent but only because our society is not truly functional, and the hubris of believing our technology will solve all of our problems (if only things went in favor of an idealized--dare I say "utopian"--outlook.)
When you consider that misguided ideas (such as Mao's China killing off the sparrow population to conserve grain, etc.) it seems evident the real issue is systemic to how societies allocate and use resources. With proper understanding of ecology, and a functional system of self-governing, many of societies problems would be eliminated (and yes, perhaps that would only occur if an extreme reduction of the population, which would require re-establishing a better society from out of it, is a bit like conflagration of an entire city just to establish a coffee shop where one was needed, indifferent to whatever else existed around it.) Perhaps take for example what actually happened following WW2 or any major global disruption? Did reduction in population cause greater fear and greater waste and misguided goals, which ended up devastating communities? Did starving entire populations such as what Stalin did, ultimately create resentment from competing factions, and did it ultimately weaken geopolitical goals, as surely, our society is not orchestrated and run by the same mindset that would even begin to consider this.
Moreso much of these ideas tend to already occur on their own without any intervention, and the hedonic treadmill continually reminds people why perceived "gains" are just pipe-dream fetishism. If anything such ideas when implemented teach us how terribly misguided humanity is, and only vindicate his idea, that maybe, he should likely have the odds stacked against himself and those who believe in it.
When populations are disrupted a significant value is lost, and the biggest loss is in society's inability to value the things that are actually needed, and only those incapable of being effectual in addressing the problem (because of how a society is able or willing to value such ideas,) would result in this kind of thinking, which is really no different from an angry old dude that jumps into a battle tank just to cause mayhem, or collects a basement full of weapons and decides to shoot up as many places until his time on earth has finally been extinguished.
Perhaps people are just waiting for the drain plug to be pulled?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink