Category: revolution

Whether you realise it or not, these are exciting times for Planet Earth. We are currently in the middle of what is known as the Sixth Extinction (in the history of Earth), or the Holocene Extinction, after the geological era. This has been caused by humans, and is reshaping the biosphere of the entire planet.

The Sixth Extinction began with human migration outside of Africa. The existing megafauna of other continents – like the Woolly Mammoth and the Moa – occupied niches that were highly sensitive to the introduction of a new apex predator, and almost all of them were wiped out by human expansion.

Today, the Sixth Extinction has wiped out significant numbers of species on every land mass and ocean. The current rate of species loss is believed to be 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than what it would have been without human presence.

And it’s not just because we’re particularly wasteful or greedy.

One inescapable fact of nature and reproduction is that, for your offspring to occupy a niche within nature, they have to drive out any possible competitors in that niche, and then to defend it against all comers. So for your offspring to so much as exist and continue to exist, they have to kill other life, because nature is permanently in a state of flux and this means conflict.

Your offspring have to eat. There’s no way around that. The cattle sector of agriculture has been responsible for 80% of the rainforest destruction since 1970. And one estimate of the world’s fish stocks suggest that the number of fish in the oceans are now 10% of their pre-industrial value.

Even if you raise them to be vegans (which is itself morally questionable), the food still has to be grown somewhere and your offspring have to live somewhere, and much of the remainder of Amazon rainforest destruction is for soybean production, housing space, or for hardwoods.

This rate of destruction is not inevitable. In fact, it is a function of another variable: our rate of population increase.

Given the increase in the human population in recent centuries (as depicted in the graph above), it is simply unavoidable that we would do the amount of ecological damage that we have done. Because people have to consume the environment around them in order to continue to live, an increasing population will always alter its environment – and therefore contribute to species extinction – in so far as it needs to eat.

The central contention of this essay is this: anyone who has more than two children does an amount of environmental damage to nature which, in terms of degree of tragedy, is equal to committing murder.

After all, there is one thing we do know for certain about our increasing population, and that is the higher it increases, the higher the demand for the limited resources of the planet become, and therefore the closer we move towards war.

If a couple has two children to replace themselves they are not increasing the amount of pressure on the environment. Only by having three or more does a couple ensure that their offspring have to expand into other niches instead of (relatively) simply just inheriting those of their parents. This expansion means aggression against the previous inhabitants of those niches – and this is unavoidable.

Perhaps, if humans were serious about avoiding the environmental collapse that would kill us all, we would pass a law so that any man who could be proven to have three or more children is to be executed. If three children was considered too restrictive, we could start with a boundary of four or even five.

A cold and dispassionate analysis of the last 100 years of European history clearly reveals that the inhabitants of Europe are a primitive bunch of savages who cannot be relied upon to govern themselves properly and who will take any opportunity to slaughter anyone on the flimsiest of pretexts. This is despite their astonishing skills at playing musical instruments and building cathedrals.

100 years ago, Europe was in the middle of what was then known as the Great War, or The War to End All Wars. Later known as World War One, this started because a rising Germany wanted a bigger slice of the world economic pie, and the established powers of Britain and France wanted to keep the size of their shares.

Rather than arranging an equal distribution of resources, the European powers chose to go to war instead. It was necessary to send soldiers all the way from New Zealand to quell the savages, and this was not achieved until Europeans had killed 10,000,000 of each other.

A few decades after this, a still rising Germany decided that they still wanted a bigger slice of the pie, only this time they went East instead of West. The established powers of Britain and France wanted to keep the size of their shares, so they attacked the Germans and said the Germans started it.

It was again necessary to send soldiers all the way from New Zealand to quell the savages, however the natural bloodlust of the Europeans had by this time led to 50,000,000 dead, with some millions of those stuffed into gas chambers in humanity’s first example of industrialised genocide.

After the guns finally fell silent on Hitler and World War II, there were a few decades of non-killing as the Europeans built the weaponry to kill each other once and for all this time. This was known as the Cold War and the Europeans found it so dull that they had to go double-or-quits on the next paroxysm of mass suicide – which they duly achieved by letting tens of millions of Muslims into Europe.

Letting tens of millions of members of an aggressive, male supremacist religion into your continent, when those same members have been trying to invade your continent and enslave you for 1,300 years, makes about as much sense as injecting yourself with a syringe full of blood when you have been specifically warned by medical professionals that the blood is full of AIDS. But they did it anyway.

From today’s vantage point, it is clear that the Europeans have shown that they lack the natural intellect to consider the wider strategic perspective or the long-term historical impact of their political decisions. Given that they have been fighting for endless centuries of violence, it is fair to conclude that this violence is in the very nature of the European man and that this will never change.

So the question is this: can Europeans, given their structural failure to adequately consider the long-term ramifications of their political decisions, be entrusted with self-governance? Or can we conclude, on the basis of the last century of historical evidence, that by their very nature they will always fight, always war, always commit genocide?

If it is the latter, as this column believes it is, the non-European world is morally obligated to step in and do something about it.

What needs to be done is that the continent of Europe needs to be made into a protectorate of the peaceful nations. Perhaps some kind of mentoring system can be brought in so that political leaders from peaceful nations visit Europe and educate the natives about the cultural values that are necessary in order to live without violence.

The South Koreans, for example, would be the perfect choice to teach Europeans about the benefits of keeping millions of illiterate religious savages out of your territory. The Chinese could teach them about how to organise the continent into one group without the need for conquest. The Indians could teach them a peaceful religion to replace the bloodthirsty Abrahamism they have fallen for. The New Zealanders and Filipinos could teach them about how to interact with other ethnic groups without violence. The Americans could teach them how to have political discussions without threatening to silence anyone who thinks against the collective.

If the functioning world is to act, we must do so soon. It’s already obvious that the Europeans will stuff the Muslims into gas chambers at some point in the next 50 years if they are not conquered by Islam first.