I was listening to some talk radio in the mid 80s, right before Rush Limbaugh and his ilk turned the medium into a vast wasteland, and the subject of population control came up. I wasn’t an antinatalist at the time, but was keen to listen. Growing up in the 70s I’d been exposed to lots of talk about dwindling resources, carbon footprints and the like, and there was much serious discussion about just how many people, along with their accompanying trundle sledge of irredeemable byproducts, the planet could agreeably sustain. Truly, in those days it would have seemed fashionably irresponsible NOT to consider the issue. Unfortunately, I kind of dropped out of the zeitgeist for a decade or so to serve as a foot-soldier for a Jim Jones wannabe (all the wackiness with just HALF the violence!), but after some time spent recovering my senses I once again turned my attention to daily global affairs, and guess what? Not a peep, and the population had doubled. So, I settled into my pickup truck’s bench seat and prepared myself for a nice philosophical diversion from the freeway traffic I was stuck in.
To make a long story short, what I actually got was some hem hawing, shoe shuffling, throat clearing, namby pamby avoisure (to quote Kent Brockman) of the subject for about 30 seconds before both the host and guest managed to trip over themselves onto a safer landing. So what happened? What changed between then and then in such a dramatic way that within 15 years the most globally relevant philosophical/political issue on the tips of everybody’s tongues dropped into the asshole of historical obscurity faster than Sabrina Rubin Eredely?
I suppose it’s a matter of ideologies that get too big for their britches and lose sight of the practical side of things. In the fight for so-called autonomy we sometimes lose sight of context, including concerns for thriving survivability. Common sense gets swept away in a tumult of professional victimization and finger pointing. Same goes for these massive human migrations we’re witnessing around the planet these days. Compassion and pragmatism MUST co-exist in some sort of balance, and all the grandstanding I’m hearing from certain corners of the political arena blinds us to this one simple fact: TOO MANY PEOPLE!
Well, there’s a rare political rant from moi. I actually lost my taste for it about halfway through, so it probably feels a bit truncated. So be it! The problem with politics, see, is that it’s never what it seems to be, and the variables are endless. Now that I think about it, politics should be outlawed. Some day...
13 comments:
I really don't understand AN's who are overly concerned with the environment. If you recognize nature for the monstrosity that it is, why would you want to preserve it? It's amazing how many radical environmentalists are staunch atheists, they've replaced god with the earth/nature. Have you ever looked at the church of euthanasia website? I agree with that guy on so many things, but he is a rabid environmentalist.
I think it may also be due to the common human coping mechanism of burying one's head in the sand. I don't mean that in an entirely pejorative way. It's the only way to get along ultimately. If we truly focused on and absorbed all life's quandaries we would instantly kill ourselves. I think deep down most people know we are an entropic species, hellbent on destroying ourselves and each other. Perhaps we want the apocalypse?
We all want the apocalypse but we hide ourselves in the sand Raúl
"I think deep down most people know we are an entropic species, hellbent on destroying ourselves and each other." I take a different view. I think we want the highest quality a life we can get, and that our highly evolved brains can achieve. The environment, other species, and humans lower on the social order be damned. Let's be honest, why wouldn't we want that?
Anonymous: I understand the chagrin people feel when they see the wanton destruction of the environment, but I think you're onto something when you say "...they've replaced god with earth/nature." Human tend to look beyond themselves for an ultimate value to hang their justifications for continuing this godawful existence. In one case it's an eternal idealized afterlife where the yin (sin) has been carved away from the yang and discarded into the void, forever and amen. The nature loving atheists tend to disseminate their existential doubts and woes amongst mystical sounding euphemisms and new age masquerades of gross and subtle form. Hope springs eternal...sigh.
Karl: We live in a very strange world, mostly imaginary. And I think you're right; a lot of the higher function stuff seems to be involved in building fairy tale stories fit for our digestion. The more I introspect, the more of this shit I see in myself, and I'M about as radical a pessimist as you'll find. The truth is not nearly the valued thing we pretend it to be.
Raul: That's a good question. Do we really want extinction? I roll that question around a lot.
Anonymous: "The environment, other species, and humans lower on the social order be damned. Let's be honest, why wouldn't we want that?" I don't really have an argument for you. Some of us do, others don't. Depends what your core values are, I reckon. No matter how strongly I might assert the obligatory nature of my particular value system, a simple 'I don't care' from you defeats them all, and easily.
NYT article on gun control and how it should be tightened due to high use of firearms in suicide in the US. The article is the typical handwringing you'd expect, but I find the debate in the comments to be interesting. The perspectives seem to be evenly split between the pros and the cons--highly polarized.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2015/12/14/opinion/to-reduce-suicides-keep-the-guns-away.html
Continuing my thought above, I think what strikes me most about the pro-gun control to prevent suicide crowd is their assumption that suicide is always an impulsive act and the act would likely not be carried out if access to a gun was not available. And furthermore, their thinking goes, people who commit suicide are bound to regret it and having used a gun makes it less likely that they can be treated successfully, as opposed to the treatbility if overdose, let's say, so let's take away the really lethal option (guns) so that all those silly suicides will take pills, and we can save them since we know they'll change their minds and really want to live after all. It blows my mind that regular folks out there can't understand that a lot of people who kill themselves have been wanting to do it their whole lives. It's meaningless that some people buy guns and kill themselves only an hour later... They could've been thinking about it their whole lives and only finally just now were able to buy the gun--that hardly connotes impulse. Hey, you well-meaners, stop telling people that they don't have a right to kill themselves easily and effectively. Stop doubting that they don't know what they want to do with their own lives.
Señor Jim,
this is off the topic, but who is Rush Limbaugh? I am sorry I dont know much US. Here the Paraguayan mass media keeps reporting about Donald Trump,the Republican candidate. Do you think he is the one chosen by the establishment to be the next president?
The first time I saw your photo you have a cigarrette,right? Are you a heavy smoker? Raul
Agree completely with the first anonymous comment. They don't call nature "red in tooth and claw" for nothing. People who claim to love nature should strip naked and go live in the middle of the desert or a jungle or in the ocean, see how long their "love" lasts then. If it wasn't for nature we wouldn't be here.
Jim, i hope you are doing fine Raúl
Post a Comment