Sunday, 25 January 2009

climate change,volentary human extinction and the carbon tax (the inconveniant fart)

A while back, I posted a link to an interesting documentary on how the whole global warming/cooling/climate change thing is bunkum on my poetry blog. the fact is that not only is there only a small amount of C02 in our environment (compared to other gasses), there is no proof whatsoever that is is harming our atmosphere. It is actually a necessary substance. More volcanoes let it out then factory chimneys. the ocean is one of the major sources of it. Even if it were harmful, you would have to kill all animals with lungs (including us), drain all the oceans, come up with a way to stop plant matter from rotting and eradicate volcano's. This planet has been around for a very,very,very long time. Humans have only been here for a blink of an eye compared to that And only a very very infinitesimal amount of that time have we been industrial. Does that mean I am not for taking care of the environment? Of course not. I am all for finding solutions to environmental problems. It's just I'd like to solve ones that actually exist. Yes the climate is changing, but it is not unnatural and is not generated one iota by us. it has been changing in cycles for millennia. In the 19Th century the Thames froze over and people would regularly hold markets there. In medieval England there were vineyards in the centre of London. and it's not just earth. Mars's icecaps are melting. Are there factories there? land rovers? aeroplanes? nope. what is causing climate change then? the sun. That's right. the sun.

scientists have been finding direct correlations between the sun's behaviour (sunspots etc) and weather change.

Now this raises the question as to WHY Governments and the media are SO keen to promote this bollocks?

The answer is simple but twofold: Money and control.

Loads of people's livelyhoods rely on it. there are people called environmental journalists for example.

Also, a lot of these climate change nuts want a carbon tax. And here is one of the main roots of the thing.

Governments love stealing off us through tax. They would love a carbon tax. It is essentially a tax on breathing. and because it is based on fictional science, they can have unlimited leeway with it.
I hear that in some parts of the US for example, farmers may end up being taxed for their animal's flatulence because it lets out methane into the atmosphere.

this is despite the fact that whales release more methane Then they do. and we let it out too.
animals have been farting for years.
Al Gore is one person who wants this tax. Do you know where he originally got his first wealth from? oil.
that's right he was an oil man. And he is preaching to us about the environment? Come.on.

it is an industry. a money making scheme turned into a religion. If you don't believe me try criticising it in a public forum. you won't get far. People have had their careers ruined for it.

the second reason is control.

as long as the masses are scared of something, they are more easily controlled.

They can now prosecute you if your wheelie bin is too full, or tax you more on you cars co2 emissions. its a con.

I recently published a load of quotes off the anarcho-blog check your premises.
The reason I don't have a link to it on my link list is because I can't morally justify his support for the VHEMT (Voluntary human extinction movement). These People want the human race to die out. I kid you not. These people make me sick.

The fact it that humans are not separate from nature and the only environmental damage we cause could be stopped by doing two things. Want to know what they are?


wait for it...

get rid of the state and capitalism.

there you go.


most of the environmental problems in this world are caused by the capitalist big business corporations. they own the factories. they subjugate the workers and decide policies. and who props them up? the state. the state starts the wars. the state is in bed with the capitalists, and in some cases the politicians are capitalists.

get rid of those two, institute an anarchist system and the planet would be a whole lot better off.
It is the state that has the WMDs (all except those states that the "international community" rattle sabres at, even though the US put most of them in power anyway), It is the state that props up most of the terrible things in the world. Humans are not the problem. It is the system that enslaves us which is the problem. if the world was run along anarchist lines I really don't think there would be starvation and environmental problems (at least not human caused ones anyway). Anarchism is a fundamentally pro-human ideology (except for anarcho-primitivism, which would require mass extermination to come even close to working.). This is why I cannot understand why anyone calling themselves anarchists would support this poisonous and ridiculous organisation of cranks. Having said that there I do like a lot of stuff on his blog. It's just in certain areas his thinking is faulty. I'm not attacking him per se, more like I'm attacking this particular belief.

breed humans! Breed! Just make sure your children are anarchists!


Francois Tremblay said...

if you had read my blog, by now you'd know that I am not in favour of extinctionism because of the environment. In fact, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. And a lot of what VHEMT says has nothing to do with the environment.

So in that area, I think the misunderstanding is on your part.

mike cannell said...

well, I apologise for misunderstanding your reasons for suporting the extinction of the human race, but from reading their site it does seem that the reason is the damage humans do to the planet. This proposed solution appears rather misanthropic and awful. Would not simply changing the system our society is run by solve this? Most of the problems caused by humans are actually created by capitalism and the state. replace this with a mutualist (or someother form of anarchy)system and we would be able to sort these problems out and would not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were.

It is not humans that are the problem. It is the system in which we are trapped . it effects our behavior and our planet, though as I point out in my post the whole climate change thing is a sham made to line the pockets of a small minority at the expence of the larger majority (bit like capitalism itself). If we merely arranged our society on healthier and more sane grounds (anarchy obviously)we would could have a healthier world without having to remove the planet's most creative and advanced species, a species that has done wonderful things as well terrible things.

why do you want the human race to die out and how can you support such an anti-human (wanting our entire species to die out is most certainly anti-human)cause and yet obstensivly support a very pro-human ideology such as anarchism. It makes no sense. Anarchism is about creating a better society for humanity (and therefore the world, this hierarchical society may have fooled us into beliveing we are seperate from nature, but we are not.)which makes no sence if we then choose to remove all humans.
You may as well support dictatorships, as that would speed things up.

it is not humans that are the problem,as I say, it's the system. Human beings have done many wonderful things, and to wish the extinction of any specises is awful. you've said on your blog (I do read it, just not regularly.)that your support of human extinctuion is a moral one. seems pretty immoral to me.But I bare no malice towards you, and support your work in helping to spread Knowledge of mutualism about a bit.

Francois Tremblay said...

I don't think the human extinction doctrine is "anti-human," as I am not against any human individual. I oppose the belief that "humanity" as a concept must persist, yes, but I don't count that as "anti-human." Breeders annoy me, but I am not "against" them.

mike cannell said...

surely the elimination of the human race would affect the individual. By having no more humans that would mean that there would be no more individual humans. by definition, if you want the end of humans in general, you are anti-human, just as if I wanted pidgeons, for example, to die out that would make me anti-pidgeon.

Francois Tremblay said...

Well that's your position. To me "anti-human" implies hostility. I bear no hostility towards the human race.

mike cannell said...

how is wanting a race to become extinct (noth mine and your own race I might add )not hostile? you want humans to die out. That is hostile. whether it's done by violence or not it's still the same outcome.

Francois Tremblay said...

I feel no hostility, but obviously you don't believe me, so I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. There's really nothing I can say that can prove or disprove it.

mike cannell said...

fair enough.