AGW catastrophism Climate Change CO2 Emissions Cooling Culture Global Warming greenhouse effect Omniclimate Policy Politics Skepticism

Nuke The Toxic Humans!

Recent entries from the Warmist camp:

  1. Genghis Khan was good regarding CO2 emissions, in particular due to his mass-killing attitude
  2. Nuclear war is good for global warming, as it reverses it for a while (no prob there, we can start a new war when needed)
  3. Exploding people including children is good for action against global warming/CO2 emissions/climate change

Who’s going to join the dots and push the appropriate nuclear button, for the good of the planet of course?

0 replies on “Nuke The Toxic Humans!”

Ed Darrell
There was a claim made. I challenged it, and asked for some documentation.

No, you are lying. You created a strawman and then want me to defend it. I never mentioned who said that man was a cancer on the planet. You ASS-U-ME-D incorrectly. But the 3 fingers are pointing back to you.

First, I never alleged that Sangar was an environmentalist – only that her organization is big in the movement and she WAS a eugenicist. You can debate whether the KKK does good work so we can ignore its roots. Go ahead. I never made the claim. YOU DID.

As for the cancer on the planet – show me where I stated ANYONE had made the statement? I will give you 10 points if you select the right one. But I am also giving 10 to 1 odds against you finding it because you are still trying to argue your strawman. So you are blind to anything else.

Phil, here’s the first post of yours I responded to, where you made mention of someone considering humans to be a “cancer on the planet.” Not my words, yours:

A logical conclusion when you consider man to be a cancer on the planet instead of a part of it. The roots of the green movement just migrated over from the eugenics movement.

Margaret Sanger’s group has never been “big” in the environmental movement. Different causes, different goals, some of the same donors no doubt, but otherwise generally unrelated. One can make a case that she was a eugenicist, but in the 1920s and 1930s that meant someone who advocated family planning, that is, self-control. Eugenics also includes the breeding and nurturing of children of good parents in good homes. KKK doesn’t do good work, and I really don’t care to debate a hate organization. I’m not sure why you think that group is relevant here.

Environmentalism is based in love and care for humans, out of the 19th century drive to “re-creation” by getting out of doors, back to nature — a nature that needs to be preserved so we can get back to it and get back to our better nature. Same roots as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, really — especially through Ernest Thompson Seton and Dan Beard. Environmentalists, though we call them leftist now, really aren’t. The movement grew out of the concerns of great capitalists — often, to me, the best thing we could say about them.

Claims that the environmental movement has close ties to the horrible effects of eugenics are weak at best, and not alive today; claims that the environmental movement is left and anti-capitalist are ahistorical, and generally just wrong.

Again, you are trying to create a strawman, but I am not biting. Indeed, read my first post. Where do I attribute the “cancer” statement to anyone? Please elucidate us oh ignoble one. You can’t (unless you lie) as I attributed to no one.

Second, you again are trying to put words in my mouth about Margaret Sangar. So I again challenge you to show me where I said that Margaret Sangar ever had any dealings with environmentalist. You again cannot (unless you lie) since I did not. But what was, is not always what is. There is a reason that there is a group called the “Neo Nazis” yet you would be hard pressed to find any real Nazis. They change, they adapt, they hide themselves. Sometimes in plain site, sometimes not so much. How many communists are left? yet if you listen to the Socialist party of America (there are both parties) you will find where they old 50s and 60s communists have gone (except for the ancient ones like Gus Hall).

I have no doubt that some dupes in the environmentalists movement are as you describe. But they are not in charge. The sheep in Animal farm made great bleaters – but they did not run the show. And the Pigs drinking with the butchers did not tell the sheep what was really happening either.

So based upon the fact you either- a) cannot read, or – b) cannot comprehend what you read, – or c) are lying, I can only conclude that you are either a dupe of the pigs, or a liar. Your choice which it is.

And thank you for quoting me again so that EVERYONE (with the possible exception of you) can see your strawman. I have no doubt there are some willing dupes around that will bleat like sheep what you are falsely trying to allege. I dare say, not many of them are smart enough to read this blog however.

Ed Darrell (19:32:51) :

Her views were never in the mainstream. She was a founder of Planned Parenthood and a committed eugenicist. Now you are trying to rewrite history. I am sure your Aryan brotherhood would be proud and may take some lessons from you.

The rest of your response is a non-sequitur as none of that was stated or alleged.

What are you responding to, Phil? There was a claim that environmentalists are eugencists, and Sanger was mentioned as an example. I pointed out she’s not an example of an environmentalist in any case.

You agree? It appears so.

Can you name for us any who claim humans as a cancer on the planet?

There was a claim made. I challenged it, and asked for some documentation.

No one can back the claim.

There’s no argument over what “is” means. Neither you nor anyone else has proposed any “is.”

a google search on toxic humans brings up a few names. am not sure what name would satisfy you and besides, one doesn’t need to always speak explicitly. Some people do think humans are toxic to the planet, a cancer to Earth, the worst thing after the Permian extinction, etc etc.

The claim was that environmentalism can be traced back to the old eugenics movement. The only name given was Sanger, for whom the case is absurd.

“Toxic humans?” Go ahead, make your case. Just don’t make stuff up. We’re talking history, not fiction.

You make the common error many neophytes make in economics, of assuming that damage creates jobs because somebody has to fix it. It’s the old broken window problem, a classic in economics.

I suppose you think the alternative is simply to throw up our hands and start praying? Surely, between doing nothing and nuclear war, we can find a hundred other things to do to reduce greenhouse emissions.

You’re not really serious, are you.

Ed – there is plenty of examples in history of asinine solutions making problems worse. Google “toad cane” for example. My “alternative” is to do what should be done in any case, eg eliminating soot emissions in homes. Your dichotomy is the real neophyte error.

Even more examples of people scoffing, wrongly, at scientists who got the story right. The Greeks even had a whole myth on the topic — Google “Cassandra.”

Cleaning soot is generally a good thing to do — it aggravates global warming if we do not simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but soot by itself is dangerous to good health.

That’s one rational response. Surely there are a lot of others.

There are also lots of examples in history of peoples ignoring signs of impending disaster, including environmental disaster, and doing little or nothing to save their civilization. See Babylon’s canals, the cedars of Lebanon, the story of the erosion around the Yellow River, the American Dust Bowl, and the cut flower industry of the Los Angeles basin.

Oh, cripes.

I was having enough trouble worrying about how my kids were going to cope with the science curriculum with all the agenda-skewing going on there, but now it’s straying into history too?

A logical conclusion when you consider man to be a cancer on the planet instead of a part of it. The roots of the green movement just migrated over from the eugenics movement.

Saving the planet doesn’t require that we consider humans to be a cancer on the planet. The environmental movement is grounded in the idea that nature, observing nature and living in nature in harmony with wild things, tends to have a greatly ennobling effect on humans. American conservationists since Lewis and Clark, Henry David Thoreau and John Wesley Powell, especially including John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Laurence Rockefeller, Wallace Stegner, Gaylord Nelson, Bob Marshall, Ansel Adams, Louis B. Marshall and Theodore Roosevelt, to name just a handful, all noted the importance of protecting the environment in order to save humans and humanity.

There is no connection I can find between the old eugenics movement and modern environmentalism. I think the connection runs quite the other way — eugenicists tended to be Spencerians, advocating a form of social evolution that meant poor people were naturally poor because they were inferior, and therefore expendable. It was a crude idea, thoroughly rejected in all other guises by American progressives, as eugenics itself, when applied to humans, was rejected by American progressives as a violation of the natural rights of man.

The roots of the anti-green, generally anti-science, anti-do-anything-to-stop-global-warming movement, rest with those Robber Barons who pushed and financed the eugenics laws in the U.S. You’ve been given an incorrect version of history.

Ed, you are not looking. There are plenty of examples of the connection between the old eugenics movement and the environmental movement. You just chose to ignore them.

you are right that it is not NECESSARY to consider man a cancer on the planet and be an environmentalist. However, that is what they CHOSE to do. No one is forcing them, they are electing to follow a course of self erradication (starting with everyone else first of course).

The robber barons were not the ones who pushed or financed the eugenics laws. it was and is liberals like Planned parenthood. Indeed, the purpose of planned parenthood (an oxymoron greater than any others) is the erradication of unworthy life. Do not beleive me? Google Margaret Sangar.

You can continue to believe in the altruism of the movement despite all evidence to the contrary. I suspect you will since you come in here with accusations and denials – but no facts. But the facts are the true inconvenient truth and they rebut all of your beliefs.

Sanger is not in any way considered to be an environmentalist. she advocated for women’s rights and, especially, for birth control. Her views, in the mainstream of U.S. Christianity at the time, appear rather offensive now.

However, she did not argue for anything beyond birth control. She did not argue that humanity is a cancer on the Earth. It’s easy to paint some of her views as offensive, but it’s impossible to make the case that she said humans are cancers and should be exterminated. It’s absurd to claim her as any great influence on conservation and environmental protection.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.