Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Things that don’t make sense unless you understand the perspective

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” ---Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environmental Program - Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit, 1992

From a certain perspective, some things don’t make sense. Change the perspective and they make perfect sense.

Most people value their lives very highly. Why would you strap a bomb onto your body and walk into a restaurant and blow yourself up? From a conventional perspective it makes no sense. But from the perspective of a person who believes that by doing so he enters into heaven and acquires a number of virgins for eternal orgies it makes perfect sense.

Why would the leader of a huge nation like Russia, destroy the most productive farmers in his country and cause a famine? From a conventional perspective, it doesn’t make sense but if the leader is trying to break the people’s will to oppose collectivization, it makes perfect sense.

If you are the leader of a country, like Cambodia, why would you kill off all the educated people? From a conventional rational perspective it makes no sense, but if your purpose is to destroy a culture and build a new culture from the ground up, starting with children, it makes perfect sense.

If you are the dictator of the Third Reich and are in losing World War 2, why would you divert limited resources to exterminating Jews and risk global condemnation? From a conventional perspective it makes no sense, but if you consider them polluters of the Master Aryan Race, it makes perfect sense.

If you believe that the weak and powerless need the protection of society why are you also an advocate of abortion until the very moment of delivery? If you believe that what’s in the womb is a baby, it makes no sense. If your perspective is that it’s not a baby, simply an appendage of the person in whom it resides, it makes perfect sense.

Saving lives is considered by most people to be a good thing. However, if you believe – as do a lot of environmentalist – that to save the planet, lots of people dying is a “good thing” it makes perfect sense.

David Foreman, Earth First!: "We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."

Prince Phillip of England: "If I could be reincarnated, I would return as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue: "We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age."

Earth First! Newsletter: "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."

Dr. Van den Bosch, University of California, chided others about their concern for "all those little brown people in poor countries" who might be saved if DDT was used.

David Graber, biologist, National Park Service: "Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planet: Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Charles Wurster, chief scientist, Environmental Defense Fund: "There are too many people and [banning DDT] is as good a way to get rid of them as any."

Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The groups conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. "

If you believe that the use of conventional fuels is destroying the planet you would not stand in the way of the construction of solar and wind power energy projects. But if you really don’t care about this or would like to do your part to help “industrial civilization collapse” you would be Diane Feinstein and introduce legislation to prevent these power sources from being built in the Mojave Desert.

Finally, the actions of the Obama administration regarding foreign policy, the economy, health care and the environment don’t make sense if you care about America. From a different perspective all these things make perfect sense.


Ed Darrell said...

Fascinating that Front Page, an outlet famous for distorting claims, offers not a whit of a citation for any of those quotes. I wonder if any of them is accurate?

And, why do you hate the Mojave desert so?

Ed Darrell said...

Oops -- forgot to note: The Wurster quote is a definite fabrication. False. Not true.

If there were data to support the anti-green side, why the character assassination?

Great Sales Today said...

Support you idea. It a right perspective should every human think especially leader.

Moneyrunner said...

Ed Darrell,

I am going to allow your comments to stand because they are a good example of ad-hominem attacks of the kind mounted by the Left. First you accuse Front Page of making distorted claims without citing any instances in which they did. That is in itself not just a logical fallacy but a slander.

Second you make an unsupported claim that the Wurster quote is a fabrication. Prove it. But beyond the fact that you can’t, it is a fact that the environmental movement is filled with people for whom humanity is a scourge. Wuster is quoted as saying something that others (see my other quotes) fully agree with. One of our leading Canadian environmentalists advocated a one-child policy for the entire world. What is ironic about this is that this person already has two children.

It should be noted that a one-child policy inevitably leads to a demographic catastrophe. One of the effects of China’s one-child policy if that there is an imbalance of males (girl children being aborted in large numbers until a son is conceived) and the eventual aging of the population leading to an economic collapse unless a replacement population is imported from outside the country.

I recommend that you educate yourself on the people drawn to the radical environmental movement and the demographics of population control. From your picture you look like an aging member of the species. You need lots of young people to work to keep you in food and shelter. However, if you wish to set an example and reduce the population of the planet by one I can’t stop you.