Blog Archive

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Who Will Save Our Environment?

Apparently this link will only work until june 14th, but the movie should be findable with a few brief clicks on the internet regardless, from independent venues. I encourage everyone to watch this movie, then come back and read my article and think on these weighty issues.

I am a global warming skeptic. It's been proven that the Earth's temperature correlates more closely to solar activity than the amount of CO2 in the air. Therefore, if the earth is warming, that probably has a lot more to do with what the sun is doing (something we surely can't be blamed for) than our own industrial activities. However, this doesn't stop us from asking what will become of this planet if it continues to heat and heat? Nor does it stop the scientific reality of the greenhouse effect. Venus is not much closer to the sun than we are, but its surface temperature is 90 times as high as the Earth's. (

The sun is clearly not to blame for a disparity of that level. It has much more to do with the fact that Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. So there we have a base reality check. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter Venus gets. Venus is often hotter than Mercury, which bakes only a few miles away from the Sun. Obviously the Sun has a lot to do with the heat of each planet, but obviously the greenhouse effect has a lot to do with it too. Simply ignoring the contribution our greenhouse gases are making to the temperature of the earth is anti-scientific. The question isn't 'do CO2 emissions raise the Earth's temperature?' The question is 'How much do human CO2 emissions contribute to the rising of Earth's temperature?' How dangerous is a hotter earth, what are the net negatives of a higher world temperature versus the possible positives? How drastic would our actions have to be to lower the Earth's temperature to some more ideal point through the manipulation of greenhouse gases alone? Is there some other way to affect the surface temperature of the earth than lowering CO2 emissions? On and on, the questions remain unanswered. As far as I'm concerned, Global Warming science is in its infancy and doesn't have the data necessary to make any practical conclusions, nor is it even asking the correct questions in the first place. Everyone knows how difficult it is to predict the weather, in that case the climate is even more difficult, since it requires understanding of the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, greenhouse gases, albedo levels, plant activity, and God knows what else. Scientists should stop advocating fossil fuel witch hunts when they haven't even done the basic research necessary to come to any accurate conclusions about the matter. And as for the sensationalism that if we don't act 'now' or 'within 10 years' all will be lost -- well then all is lost. Because there is no way in hell fossil fuel emissions are going to be stopped now, or within the next ten years, no matter what environmentalists say. Too many billions of people rely on the cheap energy of coal and oil to improve their daily lives. In 100 years, perhaps we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, and scientists should be diligently working on the technological improvements we need to make this happen. But ten? Come on. That's a dream world.

This movie isn't about Global Warming though. It only mentions global warming in passing, as part of a much larger picture of worldwide environmental meltdown. Pick an environmental crisis -- the movie has it, documented and proven. We are attacking the earth from so many different angles, destroying our environment in so many different ways, that global warming is practically a footnote. Our crisis is far more dire than rising sea levels. Our true crisis comes from rising population levels: Since 1950, the population of the earth has TRIPLED. Growth continues EXPONENTIALLY and millions more are born each year than die, compounding the problem with each passing day. The planet cannot hold us all, and is breaking apart at the seams!

Our freshwater supplies are running out, as fossil aquifers are drained of water that took billions of years to accumulate, and will take another billion years to refill. Rivers are running dry and no longer even reaching the oceans. Even as we are faced with these shrinking water supplies, the rise of population and rise in living standards continues to increase the demand on what water is left, an explosive situation that can only end in widespread famine and death.

Our precious topsoil, needed to grow crops with, is being eroded by poor land management and dumped into the sea, where it can help no one. What's left are barren deserts and, of course, starvation.

Almost all of our rare metals are facing shortages and despite massive mining programs will be exhausted within the century. I can only assume recycling will then be the main and only source for these minerals, a solution that cannot sustain a continuously rising population!

Two billion people on this planet still use wood or dung as their main source of fuel, they live wretched, short, diseased lives and tend to small subsistence farms by hand. The technology already exists that could make every part of their production and consumption more efficient, but it is impossible to transfer because the people are too stupid and barbaric to implement them. What can be done with this lower third of humanity? How can the earth bear their ever-increasing load and how can morality bear their ever-increasing suffering?

What will we do when the third world begins to starve on a massive scale?

Even as we speak, new technologies, vastly destructive to the environment, have been required to continue feeding our oil-addicted world. As oil becomes scarcer, our extraction methods become more inventive, thorough, and expensive as we hunt down every last nook and cranny of this non-renewable energy. How long can this be sustained? Our entire economy and the livelihood of much of the world's population relies on cheap oil -- this cannot even last until the end of the century. Why aren't we switching to nuclear power while we still have the chance?

What will we do when the third world, having completely destroyed their own homelands through environmental degradation, comes surging across our borders to find a new and better life in our midst? If we don't protect the environment of the third world, the people who live there will not just lay down and die -- they will come, with fire and war, to carve out a new life in the places still capable of supporting life.

The coral reefs of the world are being destroyed. The forests of the world are being rapidly cut down, by the end of the century what will remain of them?

The fisheries of the world are completely depleted. If we continue harvesting the fish in our vast oceans, they will simply die out entirely. Around 1/5 of people on earth rely on fish as a staple of their diet. When the fish go, so goes the death of a couple billion people. Will we sit and watch this precious resource be destroyed forever? Will our kids ever have access to this cheap, plentiful, and tasty fruit of the oceans? Only if we act now to secure fishing laws and create private fish farms. The oceans are one giant tragedy of the commons, everyone is taking as much profit as they can without any notice of the long term, public good. This has to be stopped immediately, it's almost too late as it is.

Species are dying out at a rate 1,000 times as high as the norm. It is obvious that our imprint on the earth is the driving force behind this massive extinction. How many of these species were intrinsically beautiful? How many held a beautiful illustration of how evolution and biology works, that we could have learned from? How many were necessary to the ecosystem and eventually, to the quality of our water, air, food, and aesthetics? A strange syndrome is destroying our bee populations -- without bees, we cannot fertilize many of our crops. This is the sort of interdependency all the species of the earth have with one another. If practically every species on earth goes extinct, it is like a skyscraper with all but one column cut trying to uphold its massive weight by a single thread. Let's not try this experiment if we don't need to! Saving the biodiversity of the planet probably has a direct connection to our own health and the sustainability of the environment we have evolved to live in and thrive amongst. I don't want a city-planet where only two species exist -- blue-green algae for eating and burning, and humans for eating the algae and burning the algae in our factories for energy. As the extinctions continue, ask yourself, where should it stop? Where do we draw the line?

Sperm counts among mankind have lowered drastically over the century. More people are infertile today than at any point in our history. Could this be related to the number of chemicals, pesticides, and God knows what we've strewn about our water, air, living spaces, and everywhere else? Mental illnesses have skyrocketed, could this be because we are living in metal jungles instead of married to the land like we have evolved to be over the course of millions of years? Auto-immune diseases and allergies stalk the developed world -- is this because of the artificially clean environments we must keep in cities to avoid the otherwise plague pandemics of an artificially dirty high population density? City living is in itself pollution, and yet as we speak people continue to move into cities. Around 50% of people alive today, live in a city, and as subsistence farming becomes increasingly impossible and population continues to grow, this proportion will also expand to 60, 70, 90, 97% of people living in these monstrous unnatural hellholes. Could this have something to do with the high suicide rates -- not among the poor and diseased of the world -- but among the rich, healthy, and sheltered? Could all the woes of bare-bones existence be less than the mental trauma of modern life? How can that be? And yet, the suicide statistics don't lie. They speak for themselves.

All of this has to do with the environment, and mankind's collective decision to turn our backs on our own planet. In doing so, we deny our own nature, sabotage our children's future, and eradicate all the innocent life forms on this planet who should never bear the sins of our own mistakes. If we want to kill ourselves, fine, but don't drag the wolves and dolphins into it! If we are not willing to inherit the stars, then we should at the very least, preserve the right for the other species to evolve and inherit it themselves. A perusal of David Brin's Startide Rising paints a beautiful picture of how sentient dolphins would do in the great beyond -- let's not eliminate that chance on our watch.

I don't even think this is a comprehensive listing of the current environmental woes afflicting our Green Mother. Overuse of anti-biotics are making once-defeated diseases resurge as incurable mutant monsters. Feeding cow brains to other cows is causing unique new brain diseases that could sweep into humanity at a moment's notice. Whole forests are dying to mysterious diseases or beetles we stupidly imported. Crop diversity is reaching all-time lows, which exposes us to famine if any disease or insect zeroes in on our last strain of wheat, corn, or what have you. The problems go on and on, and they are all based on a complete disregard for our environment. A devil-may-care attitude that says the Earth will take care of itself. That we can do anything we like to it, and no changes will ever occur to it or us. Like usual, this sort of short-term thinking is adopted by greedy corporations, stupid mud people, and various special interests. And like usual, it is brave white people who, alone, stand up for the public good. The original environmentalists, and still the only real environmentalists on earth, are white people. Europeans especially! We are the one and only race that pays attention to these issues, or tries to avert them. Even as we speak, the chinese are killing off thousands of their own with coal power plants with absolutely no clean technology. As we speak, japanese are over-fishing the sea and slaughtering dolphins for 'competing over the fish crop.' Dolphins! Sentient life with brains larger than our own! It's outrageous. Even as we speak, the third-worlders breed and breed and breed, using up their last remaining resources all at once, instead of spacing them healthily and sustainably across the generations.

The only people who have ever cared about preserving our environment, the only people with environmental laws, are white people. In so far as the rest of the world respects the environment, it is at our prompting, our moral example, our financial incentives, our pressing on them. Without us, our Mother would be defenseless. Just as we are the champions of the Princess that is Evolution, we are the protector of the entire realm -- of Life itself and the very ground we walk across depends entirely on us. While the rest, ant-like, simply breed uncontrollably and devour, thoughtlessly with no plans for the future, every resource they can find -- we alone set aside national parks, plant new trees, recycle, scrub the towers on our chemical factories, use windmills and solar panels, and all the rest. Our scientists are leading the way to ecological life-savers like algae that eats trash, clean fusion power that leaves no radioactive waste, an end to global warming, and private fish farms where we feed and kill our own fish instead of stealing from the collective oceans.

For anyone who cares about the future of humanity, or life on earth, the inevitable conclusion follows: without whites to protect the earth, the earth is doomed. Without whites to defend the Earth, to speak for the Earth, she will go silent. We will float lifelessly through the void, all the green and blue turned to a mud-sludge, burnt and arid brown. That is the only conclusion we can reach from the track records of the rest of mankind. As shamefully as our own tycoons have treated the environment, it is nothing compared to what the communists did in the Soviet Union. The Ara Sea was dried to a salt flat, and Chernobyl irradiated half of the Ukraine. It is nothing compared to the desertification of the Sahel into the Sahara, by arab/negro herders intent on feeding their flocks of cattle instead of saving what precious grass remains. It is nothing to the litter and trash that is allowed to build up in all the cities and all the beaches of South America and South Africa, treating the natural beauty of the sea like a collective landfill. We inherited such a beautiful planet. There is nothing like it in the universe. We have a duty to pass it on, untouched, virgin and pure, to the next generation, just like we received it -- or better. If this means drastically reducing the human population, then so be it. As I just said, mankind's population has TRIPLED since 1950. Nobody in 1950 complained about how few people there were on earth and how empty and desolate life was. No, 1950 was a happy time, a prosperous time, a good time to be alive. If we third the population of the earth, we'll simply be returning to the population of the planet 60 years ago -- A TIME MANY OF US WERE ACTUALLY ALIVE ON THIS PLANET AND ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY!!! That's how short a span it has been since we inherited a mostly clean, a mostly pure earth -- and turned it into a human metal anthill perhaps fitting for bug-people but never for homo sapiens.

I also have a great idea on who we can target for this drastic population reduction. The most marginal, poor, starving, stupid, beknighted, barbaric classes wouldn't be a loss to anyone. They have like 10% of GDP and 1% of global trade to their name, with all 2 billion of them gone, we wouldn't even notice the difference. It wouldn't make a bit of difference to our economy or our standard of living. Nor do we have to kill them directly. All it takes is birth control! A linkage of birth control to foreign aid could reverse their birth rates and, without harming a single living being, save our planet from ecological disaster. Not only would we be saving ourselves, and our Earth, and the future -- we would also be saving all those children who, if they had been born, would known a life of only pain, disease, starvation, horror, stupidity, ignorance, and death. What kind of future do African children have? What kind of life do they lead? Is it even a human existence? Should anyone be cursed to be born into this world with AIDS, given polluted water, insufficient food, and be eaten alive by worms and flies until they die or are raped by crazed witchcraft believers who believe a child's virginity is the cure to AIDS? I can't comprehend how love, or pity means bringing as many of these types of children into existence as possible. To me, it is just the opposite. We should make sure as few children are ever born into these circumstances as possible. It should be a human rights violation to have a child with a future of this sort. It should be child abuse to give birth to a child in Africa, and the prosecution of such a crime is completely moral and just. To people with their heads screwed on straight, the crime isn't stopping Africa's implosion -- it's not stopping its explosion on the world at large.

In any event, environmentalism is more than just overpopulation or the woes of Africa. It indeed calls for a new way of life for all people on this planet, and it should be involved in all of our economic and lifestyle decisions from the bottom up. I don't want to hijack environmentalism for the cause of racism, what I want to do is integrate the two causes into an overarching whole. These two truths, these twin dangers, mud people and the destruction of our last natural resources, must both be dealt with in the coming century. It's obvious that the two solutions will also overlap. It's obvious that the Green party should be our natural allies and love the white race above all others -- it's obvious that Green parties only exist in majority white nations!!! It's time to take care of our planet which gave us birth, it's a cause whose time has come. It's time we acknowledge the natural differences between the races and assert that the superior should inherit the earth, it's a cause whose time has come. There is no friction between them.

Who will save our Environment? Whites, and whites alone. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. We must secure the survival of our Planet and a future for white children. What could be more obvious than that the two go hand in hand?

No comments: