100% All-Natural Composition
No Artificial Intelligence!

Friday, November 23, 2007

Women who won't have babies "for the good of the planet"

This may be one of the most screwball things that I've ever read. And I've read plenty of screwball in my short time in this world...

There's a story at the Daily Mail website about women who refuse to get pregnant. Who have gone so far as to choose to be sterilized. Because to them, babies are "not eco friendly". They have rendered themselves incapable of having babies to "protect the planet".

So in order to preserve the beauty of the Earth, it now becomes morally righteous to wipe out people who can enjoy and appreciate that beauty. Ooh-kaaaaaay...

I long ago came to distrust Radical Environmentalism (which I capitalize because it really has become a religion as much as Christianity or Buddhism or what have you). Radical Environmentalism is the "observer effect" taken to an ecclesiastical extreme and turned into a weird cult of neo-flagellants. I have never understood why some people believe that the possession of conscious thought is grounds for ecological segregation. Man is not a thing apart from the environment: man is an active component of the environment.

And the idea that man must be diminished or even banished entirely from that environment in order to "preserve" it is absolutely insane. Even on a strictly "environmentalist" level it makes no sense, because for radical environmentalism of this sort to be valid, it must be true that Earth's environment exists in a pristine, static state without flux or change. We know that this is not true at all: Earth's environment is constantly changing, caused by factors well beyond our control and influence. Those include solar radiation, magma displacement far underground, genetic mutation (such as the periodic shifting of the flu virus), many other things. So the rabid environmentalist mindset is already something wildly illogical.

Here is where Radical Environmentalism differs from conservation, which is a good thing. Conservation does embrace the fact that man is part of the environment, and maintains that we are to be stewards of the land as best we can. Conservation has us as participants in the world, while extreme Environmentalism makes us a disease to be cut out.

But let's cut to the real problem with Radical Environmentalism: as happens all too often with religion, it's purpose has become that of power and control over other people. And apparently, it is a religion much like that of Molech in the time of the Old Testament, where the highest sign of devotion was to sacrifice your own child. Now we have women sacrificing their own wombs to demonstrate fealty to their idol. Would these women have done such a thing, had they not wanted a sense of empowerment and decided that it was worth sacrificing their identities and their flesh for that measure of power? Probably not. But such is the allure of the collective mind.

Sad. Just very, very sad...

Kinda makes you wonder if watching Children of Men should be required in high school biology classrooms. Hey if An Inconvenient Truth can be mandatory viewing , why not a movie about what happens when there are no more babies being born?