Saturday, July 15, 2017

Environmentalists With The Masks Off

     There’s a near-perfect correlation between the espousing of environmentalist views and hostility toward Mankind. That hostility includes an aversion to human reproduction:

     Current anthropogenic climate change is the result of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere, which records the aggregation of billions of individual decisions. Here we consider a broad range of individual lifestyle choices and calculate their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries, based on 148 scenarios from 39 sources. We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). -- “The climate mitigation gap”

     The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-today activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment. -- “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals”

     Based on per capita consumption — on an individual basis — there isn't much more growth in the amount we can consume, according to Bernstein's Neil Beveridge and team in a note on Friday....per capita consumption may not have more room to increase. -- Akin Oyedele

     “Having children is one of the worst things you can do for the planet. Have one less and conserve resources.” – Feminist writer Jill Filipovic

     The consistency is remarkable: Travel less! Consume less! Use expensive, unpleasant, garish lightbulbs! Have fewer children! All in the name of “reducing carbon.” Perhaps we could all stop exhaling for a few decades, as well. These folks would approve, I’m sure.

     Jim Geraghty thinks it’s left-wing narcissism:

     “I’m a childless adult, telling all of you people out there to stop having children.” “I’m a vegan, telling you that you have to stop eating meat.” “I’m an urbanite who doesn’t own a car, telling you that your automobile is destroying the planet and gas taxes should be higher to support the costs of mass transit.” The not-so-subtle subtext is, “why aren’t you more like me?”

     Perhaps that’s so in a few cases, but I can’t see it as applied to the great mass of the Left. The self-regard of the Leftist arises from his assumption of moral and intellectual superiority to the rest of us. If we all shared his views, there’d be no one to whom he could self-righteously compare himself. He needs us.

     The common factor – the hostility toward the normal lives of Americans and others of the First World – suggests a need to hate. That, too, is consistent with the Left’s assumption of greater intelligence and higher morals. Of course, were they to achieve the position of unlimited power they seek, their whole game would burn itself out shortly after their victory dance. But Leftists don’t think long term. Indeed, there’s some question as to whether they think at all.

     As data accumulates – particularly through Leftist self-disclosures – it becomes ever more definite that nothing really matters to them apart from their absolute emotional need to feel superior. That they should seek that sense of superiority by submerging themselves in hatred-suffused movements funded and directed from the top down by wealthy would-be dictators is nothing new. The history of socialist and communist movements is quite consistent that way.

     If any one aspect is more of a giveaway than the rest, it’s the Left’s hostility toward children:

     Well, let me just put a stop to this shit right now. You can give me gold-plated day care and an awesome public school right on the street corner and start paying me 15% more at work, and I still do not want a baby. I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. No matter how flexible you make my work schedule, my entire life would be overturned by a baby. I like my life how it is, with my ability to do what I want when I want without having to arrange for a babysitter. I like being able to watch True Detective right now and not wait until baby is in bed. I like sex in any room of the house I please. I don’t want a baby. I’ve heard your pro-baby arguments. Glad those work for you, but they are unconvincing to me. Nothing will make me want a baby. -- Amanda Marcotte

     I don’t suppose it would do any good to tell Filipovic or Marcotte that they were babies, once. “Be glad your mother chose life” cuts no ice with those who hate Mankind...because the objects of their hatred include themselves.

     Feel free to suggest suicide to the next environmentalist that starts haranguing you. I do!


David said...

I suppose we should be grateful to Amanda M. for removing herself from the human gene pool. The future belongs to the McCains and the Madrids. God bless your families!

Unknown said...

More co2, more food/vegetation/
Thus, for our progeny, greater chance for their genius to sustain the world.

Dr. Mabuse said...

In "The Everlasting Man" G.K. Chesterton wrote that one of the telltale marks of Satanic activity is the recurring war upon childhood:

"This inverted imagination produces things of which it is better not to speak. Some of them indeed might almost be named without being known; for they are of that extreme evil which seems innocent to the innocent. They are too inhuman even to be indecent. But without dwelling much longer in these dark corners, it may be noted as not irrelevant here that certain anti-human antagonisms seem to recur in this tradition of black magic. There may be suspected as running through it everywhere, for instance, a mystical hatred of the idea of childhood. People would understand better the popular fury against the witches, if they remembered that the malice most commonly attributed to them was preventing the birth of children. The Hebrew prophets were perpetually protesting against the Hebrew race relapsing into an idolatry that involved such a war upon children; and it is probable enough that this abominable apostasy from the God of Israel has occasionally appeared in Israel since, in the form of what is called ritual murder; not of course by any representative of the religion of Judaism, but by individual and irresponsible diabolists who did happen to be Jews. This sense that the forces of evil especially threaten childhood is found again in the enormous popularity of the Child Martyr of the Middle Ages. Chaucer did but give another version of a very national English legend, when he conceived the wickedest of all possible witches as the dark alien woman watching behind her high lattice and heading, like the babble of a brook down the stony street, the singing of little St. Hugh."