So here is another fun one, coming hot off the presses: ‘The only solution for climate change is letting the human race become extinct’.
I have been covering this nonsense on this blog for years, so I trust that my readers at least won’t be surprised by such fare. I know that I’m not. Rather than talk about the wellsprings of such noxious viewpoints, which I have done in the past, I’m going to take it from a different angle.
One of the things I’ve argued before [see #1] is that one can often discern whether or not something is true is whether or not it leads to pain, suffering, and death. For example, if someone believes he is impervious to trucks speeding along at 50 mph, reality will demonstrate otherwise. Reality is the ultimate baseline for measuring the veracity of our viewpoints. If you defy it, you and/or others are going to get hurt, or worse.
The ultimate extension of this principle, I think, has got to be that humans should be removed entirely from the planet. Is there anything worse than that? Perhaps that they are all tortured first? I guess, but there isn’t much margin left for extremism beyond calling for human extinction, I would say. Here is what our latest nutjob, Patricia MacCormack, has to say:
The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction. But rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity, it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth – without mankind. [emphasis added]
Just stop and think for a moment about what kinds of measures would have to be implemented in order to ‘phase out reproduction.’ We may imagine that MacCormack has thought about it and it has not occurred to her that others who have come to the same conclusion may be prompted to be more brutal in their analysis: If the humans are murdering the earth, the only way to save the earth is to murder the humans.
I documented a similar extension of such reasonings a few years back, when Peter Singer, gleefully seconding the viewpoint of philosopher David Benatar, posits that the best thing for the human race is for everyone to be sterilized, making this the last generation. The reasoning, in this case, is that when we consider our lives soberly, it is so filled with suffering that no amount of joy can surpass it, such that it is always wrong to bring a new person into the world.
Singer went further in another context, having previously argued that you can kill a child up to the age of 2 perhaps (as it is not yet a ‘person’), affirmed the viewpoint that an ‘after-birth abortion’ was a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. Even a child who we expect to be happy remains a burden on parents and society alike. It is not too terribly difficult to see how that reasoning, extended perfectly rationally, would not also justify ‘after-toddler abortion’ or ‘after-adolescent abortion’ or ‘after-adulthood abortion.’
Indeed, we are watching this reasoning eat away from the outsides towards the insides, with both rationales AND ACTION being taken against the very young and the very old. By ACTION I mean, killed. With the earth itself in the balance, why tap dance around the obvious? Why half-measures like ‘phasing out’ or ‘sterilization’? Why not consider a global police force to enforce a global one-child policy with compulsory abortion and sterilants in the water supply–per Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Diane Francis?
None of these and hundreds if not thousands that I could mention are conservatives.
Far from being outliers, these are mainstream figures. Which is a bit of my point, I’d add. MacCormack, we are told, is “a Cambridge academic” and “professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.” Her book is actually being published by Cambridge’s academic press. Singer teaches out of Princeton University. Benatar’s book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, was published by Oxford University Press. John Holdren’s book wherein he proposed compulsory abortion and more was a college textbook; he is now a professor at Harvard. Beyond them, sprinkled throughout universities the world over in large doses, are average, run of the mill professors sharing very similar ideas.
Naturally, then, its no surprise then when a leading candidate for president (Bernie Sanders) in the Democrat primary, when asked about population control, immediately leaps to a discussion about abortion, and liberals nowhere bat an eye. To put it even more baldly, the REALITY is that tens and tens of millions of Americans–literally have no problem whatsoever using abortion as a way of ‘managing the population’, especially in the third world. (I don’t know about you, but this seems awfully racist. And also puts the lie to it really being about a “woman’s rights.”)
FACT: NONE of these people are conservatives. They are nowhere near any conventional understanding of the political right and are firmly and happily accepted and acceptable on the political left.
And did I mention that many of them are calling for the actual extinction of the human race?
Try to think, just for a moment… I mean, THINK of all the young kids going to the universities and studying under these mainstream, highly regarded figures perched in prestigious places like HARVARD, OXFORD, PRINCETON, and CAMBRIDGE, professors, are going to think they are receiving real facts about the world which are ‘uncontested’ except by uninformed, ignorant… how does MacCormack put it? “… white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied people…” won’t get with the program.
To the extent that such viewpoints are ‘outliers’ (a patently absurd and grossly unreal proposition) there is no good reason it will remain so, with these young activists taking their useless gender studies degrees and finding jobs in governments and academia (such degrees being unable to get them jobs anywhere else, understand), and then further transmitting such views and then ENACTING POLICIES that further them.
I return to my original point: we can often detect viewpoints that are false and unreal by observing that they tend to lead to pain, suffering, and death. We note, now, how intertwined all of them are in a network of shared beliefs about abortion, population control, sexuality, the environment, socialism/anarchy/communism, etc. THEY THEMSELVES SEE THEM ALL LINKED as part and parcel of ONE COHERENT WORLDVIEW. In our latest, we have MacCormack saying:
“I arrived at this idea from a couple of directions. I was introduced to philosophy due to my interest in feminism and queer theory, so reproductive rights have long been an interest to me – this led me to learn more about animal rights, which is when I became vegan.
“The book also argues that we need to dismantle religion, and other overriding powers like the church of capitalism or the cult of self, as it makes people act upon enforced rules rather than respond thoughtfully to the situations in front of them.”
The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world.
Additionally, humanity has to see it isn’t the single living dominant force – but first, it needs to dismantle an established hierarchy amongst itself.
She then under and overstates things:
This argument has not received as much disagreement as you might expect. Professor MacCormack continued: “Everyone’s okay with the ideas in the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it.”
In her universe–that is, within secular humanistic, liberal, and progressive circles–they are all ok with such ideas. The sober… er… “joyful and optimistic ” consideration of extinguishing all human life on the planet? Bloody hell, why not! Totally appropriate propositions to bat around for potential implementation in the leftist universe!
Which brings me finally to the title of this essay. Look, when your fellow travelers have pretty much every view that you have, with the only real difference is some quibbling on the edges of things… you know, whether or not we should limit families to two children or one, or herd people into cities, or forcibly sterilize and/or compel people to get abortions, or “dismantle” things by ‘gradually phasing out’ (by what measures, exactly?), there is much reason to suspect that the problem is with the WHOLE WORLDVIEW.
They aren’t that much different than you, dear liberal. Perhaps they just have more courage of their convictions than you do.
There are certain viewpoints on the ‘right’ which might be expected to lead to ‘pain, suffering and death,’ but there is NOTHING on the scale of postulating the removal of humans on the planet, wholesale. Take your worst white supremacist–who, truth be told, is actually only a leftist who takes Darwinism seriously on an applied level, but we’ll just assume for sake of discussion that he really is a right-winger–and you will not find any that want to rid the globe of ALL humans.
That said, there are glimpses in some of the latest manifestos released by these sorts of people that they, too, are animated by ‘climate change.’
Now, strictly speaking, it doesn’t follow that these people are ‘wrong.’ Maybe they are quite correct, and we do need to wipe all humans off the planet, because otherwise the planet will DIE, and anyway, no human lives are really worth living, all things considered. They obviously think they are correct, and they obviously believe they are reasoning from valid principles. They seem to be busily trying to persuade fellow liberals and progressives to get on board with what ‘obviously’ follows from those principles. (The uselessness of these ‘resistant’ liberals is subject of one of my blog posts.)
Thus, my appeal is to something more basic, more fundamental than even these principles. It is the notion that no matter what else we believe or think, the deaths of millions of humans is in point of fact abhorrent, and, in point of fact, life is worth living, all things considered. If you don’t agree with that, then we have nothing to say to each other. I consider you my enemy, and you consider me your enemy.
If you do agree with that, then its time to spend some serious time pondering why it is that a growing number of people with YOUR principles and values are openly calling for the eradication of humanity itself, with a variety of abhorrent tyrannical ‘half measures’ (their language) getting to that point (eg, compulsory sterilization and/or abortion, etc). What is it about YOUR principles and values which are taking your reasonable and rational fellow travelers off the deep end?
If you are following my argument to this point, what I am suggesting here is that this trend actually reveals the bitter truth, that somewhere and somehow, there is something NOT TRUE and NOT REAL about YOUR principles and values.
Throughout this blog, I have laid out many ideas as to what those things are. Moreover, I have shown that this is not by any means the only place where YOUR principles and values are radically harming people, if not leading to their enslavement and/or death. But, I assume you wouldn’t believe it if you heard it from me. You’re going to have to discover it yourself. Or, to put it another way, as I’ve said elsewhere if we are to be spared from these ‘mainstream’ viewpoints expressly pining for our collective destruction or creating widespread destruction in the name of ‘the public good’, there is nothing we on the ‘right’ can do about it.
The ‘left’ is going to have to fix itself, or it will never be fixed.
I have much more to say about this. I have given some big examples, but these deviations from reality which lead to harms big and small, are the daily fare of the ‘left.’ Some of these smaller examples will be helpful to mention if anyone does decide to rethink the foundations of their worldview.