There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is in having lots to do and not doing it. - Mary Wilson

The Green Movement is Dumb

Posted: July 6th, 2009 | Author: | Filed under: | 37 Comments »

Follow Me bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark

Courtesy art_es_anna
Courtesy art_es_anna

Imagine this; in an instant the entire world reduces their emissions by 50%.  Some technological breakthrough like cheap solar power allows everyone to stop burning oil.  Everyone all at once starts recycling.  We all drink out of reusable aluminum bottles and no one uses paper plates.  We stop printing tps reports out on paper, and we don’t let cows fart any more.

What would that do?  Absofuckinglutely nothing.  In the most developed country in the world, with probably the lowest fertility among it’s population, there are 15 children in the cul-de-dac of four houses down the road from where I live.  The population growth in my neighborhood and the United States as a whole, is growing far less than that of less developed nations which make up the rest of the world.  You see it’s not oil companies and shopping malls that are the scourge of the earth, it’s children.

Take the wildly optimistic fantasy land described above and double the population.  All you’re progress just got erased.  If you recycle half your trash, but you have 4 kids you’re still generating twice as much trash.  The really bad news is that cheap solar and massive conservation of our resources isn’t going to happen (the people who run our world can’t profit from us using less).

There’s some good news though…kinda.  The earth comes with built in population control.  As population density increases fertility drops and we live shorter lives all despite advances in technology and medicine.  We live and work in cubes, spend less time outside, and the quality of our food goes to zero.  We must grow more corn in an ever decreasing surface area.  Diseases spread more rapidly as we begin to live closer to each other.  In undeveloped nations people starve and die.  In developed nations people get fat and die.  Over time we’ll eventually either start dieing faster or stop having kids faster, but by then the earth will be destroyed no matter what car you drive.

So next time you’re at the grocery instead of buying one of those reusable shopping bags, buy some condoms.


37 Comments on “The Green Movement is Dumb”

  1. 1 Odai said at 8:04 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    This may or may not be a valid point; I’m not sure. But without any sources to back up these claims, how do I know what you say is true?

  2. 2 TBONE said at 8:37 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    Please read,”A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift.

    Perhaps instead of continually creating more food for more kids, we use the kids we create AS food.

    PROBLEM SOLVED.

  3. 3 Dan B said at 8:48 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    I’m not to worried about trash.

    “A. Clark Wiseman, an economist at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., has calculated that if Americans keep generating garbage at current rates for 1,000 years, and if all their garbage is put in a landfill 100 yards (91 m) deep, by the year 3000 this national garbage heap will fill a square piece of land 35 miles (56 km) on each side. This doesn’t seem a huge imposition in a country the size of America. The garbage would occupy only 5 percent of the area needed for the national array of solar panels proposed by environmentalists. The millennial landfill would fit on one-tenth of 1 percent of the range land now available for grazing in the continental United States. And if it still pains you to think of depriving posterity of that 35-mile (56 km) square, remember that the loss will be only temporary. Eventually, like previous landfills, the mounds of trash will be covered with grass and become a minuscule addition to the nation’s 150,000 square miles (390,000 km2) of parkland.”

  4. 4 hammeroftruth said at 8:57 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    This is the horrible propaganda that the worlds elites are pushing right now.
    People need to read up on how this whole ” global warming” nonscence is being used to bring in
    Carbon tax and more governmental control of our lives

  5. 5 admin said at 9:04 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    @dan this is a good point, the issue in not the volume of garbage or even the pollution/carbon generated. The issue is the amount of energy/food/space consumed by the people themselves. As humans we are controlling a massive amount of the vegetation on earth. We will all starve or die of plague before the air becomes unbreathable.

  6. 6 acepek said at 9:07 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    It’s up to the current generation to make sure we scare the next generation enough to do something about the problems that we created for them.

    I dig your pessimistic view of humanity. It’s hard to refute.

  7. 7 Joy said at 11:29 am on July 22nd, 2009:

    When I was young we used to search for old garbage sites in the mountains from old ghost towns. Today, there is sooo much garbage, that 100 years from now, dumpster diving is going to be an employable skill!

  8. 8 Marcelo said at 1:15 pm on July 22nd, 2009:

    Utopic thinghs, maybe people will got this knowledge in 200 years, fell sad about it

  9. 9 Adrian McIlroy Speed said at 1:44 pm on July 22nd, 2009:

    As said “Necessity is the mother of invention.” If the global population increases, so does our ability to produce food and resources.
    What you are describing in paragraph four is known as a Malthusian crisis and society has changed since they were applicable. With modern technology nothing stands in the way of population growth.
    It is theoretically possible for 100 billion humans to live on this planet comfortably and without contest for food and resources, but to achieve such a state requires new inventions and new ideas, ones unthought of so far.
    Moreover, the green campaign does not do ‘absofuckinglutely nothing”. Reducing the emissions of the world at large prevents global warming catastrophies from occurring. Most of the world’s population, estimates vary from 30-75%, lives in an area at risk from sea level rise. Many more live in areas threatened to become desert. To throw away the Green Campaign just because you think it is pointless sentences those people to death, or at least the loss of their homes. Any effort to prolong our current world state, to fend off climate change and it’s ilk, is effort to be welcomed.
    In addition, we live a ridiculously decadent life, one we have not earned, nor deserve. Three fifths of food in Britain, for example, is thrown away. More, I imagine, in the US. Three fifths. If we stopped throwing away that much food alone we could have our population happily increase far more. Right now, at any given moment, there are 4500 calories for every man woman and child on the planet Earth, but it is too unevenly distributed. A member of the Western civilisation might think nothing of throwing away half a plate of uneaten food every now and then, but all that thrown away food, from every household, could happily feed a small country. Four and a half thousand calories. That’s more than twice what most people need.
    It doesn’t matter if you have no children, 2 children or a dozen children, the idea of enviromentalism, the Green Campaign, is to carefully manage resources for the good of all. To stop the waste of society so that the children of the future can indeed enjoy the world. It’s possible, it’s easy, it requires only that one gets into new, better habits.
    People don’t like doing it for a number of reasons, laziness, inability to accept change, that they don’t trust those giving them the facts, or countless others besides, but the truth is there. If you really put in the effort, cut emissions, stop wasting food, water and resources, our children’s children will still be enjoying our life style, in the same cities we lived in, without worry.

  10. 10 Adrian McIlroy Speed said at 1:45 pm on July 22nd, 2009:

    I forgot to mention, it was Boserup, a famous agriculturalist, who said the quote “necessity is the mother of invention”

  11. 11 fop said at 6:13 pm on July 22nd, 2009:

    How about buying some reusable bags AND some condoms? Then you can have something to carry the condoms home in, and, indeed, several more boxes of condoms over the years.

  12. 12 Haolegolucky said at 12:37 am on July 23rd, 2009:

    I couldn’t agree with you more. Al Gore touched on it for a split second in his movie where he showed world population graphs and carbon emissions. No politician will touch this though…

    The “right” to breed is ingrained in our biology as well as being laid as as part of the ‘merikan dream. Two kids, a house in the ‘burbs, two cars, and a big fat lawn.

    I share your view that no amount of fighting carbon emissions will matter if we don’t get the population seriously under control.

    Thank god I am snipped!

  13. 13 ikiryou said at 6:05 am on July 23rd, 2009:

    Nature is pretty good at population control on its own. Tsunami’s, immense hurricanes, even asteroid strikes (google ’99942 Apophis’) are ‘nature’s’ way of population control.

  14. 14 Thomas Van Oppens said at 8:30 am on July 23rd, 2009:

    Well, the population will grow anyway thus becoming greener is better than not. It would just be more convenient not to do efforts.

  15. 15 Peter C. Hayward said at 4:31 am on July 24th, 2009:

    Out of curiousity, how are we at risk of the ocean levels rising? The only answer I’ve ever heard to this is “the ice-caps melting”.

    The ice-caps melting is not going to make the ocean levels rise. Think about it for a while.

  16. 16 Kate Mulholland said at 8:29 am on July 24th, 2009:

    Peter, it’s not the sea-borne glaciers that are the problem (though their melting is an indicator of warming temperatures). It’s the land-based ice, like that in Greenland. You’re right that glaciers that are already in the ocean won’t change the sea level, but the ice melting on land and flowing to the sea? That’s a problem.

  17. 17 Mark Swanson said at 12:50 pm on July 24th, 2009:

    If you stop and consider the state of the world population then I think that more condoms wouldnt be a bad idea. There are already too many people on the face ofthe planet and its only going to get worse. eventually we will run out of natural carbon based fuels and there will be not petrol/diesel/coal etc to power the planet. Then what? Just what is our destiny? I think thatone view is that there are still too many people who dont care and are going to have a the best time possible and the rest can go to hell anyway.

  18. 18 Sergei said at 6:22 am on July 25th, 2009:

    in words of Emdmund Blackadder
    “i love you, and i want to have your children” :)

    This is great sum up on the whole histeria on how you “should do things so Planet will go on”.. I mean i am ok with not polluting much, with preserving energy, renewable sources and stuff.. I do it as much as i could, being part of TREAD Lightly and and some other movements.

    But whole All-Hail-Al-Gore thing lately just got plain scary…

  19. 19 Nicole said at 10:33 am on July 26th, 2009:

    “Global Warming is either completely misunderstood or Incompletely understood”

    Too many opinions going around. Those with children or nieces or nephews are easily willing to make the minor changes that may or may not save us from the predicted catastrophe, but only an idiot can sit on his or her ass and decide to do absolutely nothing.
    What the planet doesn’t need is more lazy ass, cynical people.

  20. 20 Lain said at 5:05 pm on July 27th, 2009:

    I think the green movement isn’t dumb, but I also think the population is dangerously high.

  21. 21 Edith Solis said at 9:09 pm on July 27th, 2009:

    not necessarily need to buy condoms if they just attached to their moral values and to choose abstinence. Well I know my way of thinking is radical in these times but it is my humble opinion.

  22. 22 Ben GypsyRhapsody said at 12:13 pm on August 2nd, 2009:

    Fecundity must certainly decrease sooner or later. Our planet can only support so much, and it is our choice whether we will make a planned transition, or suffer the consequence you’ve stated.
    Anyone who denies the effects of global warming is an imprudent, capricious, dysfunctional piece of hipster trash. Science brought us to the moon. Science now brings us to new galaxies, so trust me when I say that science can tell when we are destroying our planet! As for those “credible” who disagree, they are prodigal, fueled by avarice: those giant corporate lobbies.
    In addition, solar panels and windmills, you’ve got to be kidding me. Nuclear power is the only solution- no doubt about it. This is the green campains biggest folly. You’re right that “green movement” mainly does absolutely fucking nothing, but only because it is largely compose of green washing by companies. It is now not so difficult to see why Nuclear Energy has been disqualified. If we really want to solve this problem, we must place scientist in charge, and not tolerate political ruse.
    As for buying for condoms, yeah good idea, but I think we must first teach prudence, exemplifying that more children will only further burden.
    Morals of abstinence? You honest think the impoverished have that moral compunction; even more so, how many people in the more hegemonic nations actually value there vagina’s purity as much of you?

  23. 23 Matt said at 2:48 pm on August 3rd, 2009:

    I’m only a high school student, so my facts may be wrong, but we were taught in class that a peculiar trend in most fully developed nations is causing them to have a birth rate that’s decreasing, which is lessening the population. Developing nations, however, are still growing, but once they get developed too, the world’s population will start to go down slowly.

    So for now, the population’s climbing, but later (2050 I think it said) the population will be more under control.

  24. 24 Eric said at 12:39 pm on August 5th, 2009:

    Despite 3rd world nations out-breeding us here in the US, your average American consumes far more goods, far more water, creates far more garbage and far more pollution. The US military is the number one consumer of fossil fuels. And demand for fossil fuels in China is growing faster than it has ever in the US — meaning the main source of energy that powers our economy will be sent to China instead because they’re going to pay more for it.

    So, the collapse of the US economy is a definite without the Green movement — without increases in efficiency, sustainability and technology. And the collapse of the human race is a definite without the green movement. We are simply unsustainable right now. At the current rate, on a long enough timeline, humans are doomed. But, with new technology and sustainable practices, we are not doomed. With the Green movement, our future is unknown — which in my opinion is better than knowing that we are doomed.

    So, sure, population growth is a problem, but it doesn’t negate the green movement. It’s a well known obstacle, but the attitude portrayed by this article is not going to get anyone anywhere.

  25. 25 Dean Romano said at 7:10 am on August 8th, 2009:

    It may be true that we cannot cut all emissions at once. But we can get strict and draw the line. No we can’t stop cows from farting. That’s even dumb to think we can, and time waisted when there should be more important things to deal with.

    However we can slow the process of emission’s and factories and create an environmental workforce in place of lack of work, and eventually change the system Huge oil and gas companies could reinvest into a going green workforce. Were very nero minded . If we made our society what it is we can change it to a whole new society.

    But it would require some major changes. Unfortunately you may be right. It may be to late. However if people really wanted to make the difference we could. Yes the birth of more people is a problem and working with science to find another planet for some of the human race to live on is not going fast enough. Also there has been some thought to people living in cities under neath our oceans which could be dangerous. There are no easy answers. But unfortunately stopping the birth of children. At this point that is not even an option for some. Yes there is a problem. But not impossible.

  26. 26 bethann said at 7:25 am on August 14th, 2009:

    Your post made me think about the stories I’ve heard about physicians telling patients they have “six months” to live; specifically, how individuals respond in different ways after hearing what the physician/the health care system assumes is 100% predictable. While most people may “die on time”, others do not, and miracles (that we even have medical terms for, like spontaneous remission) happen…most often when the individuals use the “six months” to maximize the possibility they will happen. It seems like a good idea to maximize our possibilities.

  27. 27 Pete1844 said at 11:11 am on August 16th, 2009:

    I found you through a stranger following me on Twitter; I feel that the population factor is an important one re climate change. To cope with winding down industry’s production of greenhouse gases, control of population is also necessary, though draconian measures would be less necessary if the world created a replacement to the UN in the form of a parliamentary representative democratically elected World Federal Government, as long as initiative was delegated to as local a level as possible, as well as creating the international co-ordination necessary to avoid the anarchy and destruction inherent in absolute state sovereignty.

  28. 28 Dan Garland said at 11:27 am on August 18th, 2009:

    Sir,

    The mistake you make in this article, in common with all fascist ideology, is to scapegoat people as the cause of some problem, as you extrapolate here in the example of the environment. You have to be some kind of Nazi to say that “it’s not oil companies and shopping malls that are the scourge of the earth, it’s children.”
    The world exists for the people in it, and whether we survive as a species or not it will be in spite of disconnected people such as yourself.

  29. 29 Justin said at 11:45 am on August 19th, 2009:

    I agree that population density is increasing but life expectancy is also increasing . How does that work with your theory?

  30. 30 Naumadd said at 1:45 am on August 22nd, 2009:

    Absolutely the first cause of environmental damage/destruction resulting from human activity is irresponsible human reproduction. It’s basic math – fewer humans require fewer resources produce less waste causing less irreparable damage to the earth’s ecosystem. Certainly, it’s good sense to be as responsible as is possible in management and consumption of resources even for a small population, however, it isn’t too far a stretch of the imagination to think that a population responsible enough to control its population growth will also be responsible in many other ways. I have to agree – greater efficiency and less destructive practices in our daily lives will only go so far if we continue to produce ourselves uncontrollably. As you say, if we do not voluntarily curb human population growth, other human beings or nature at large will compel us to do so. Of course, nature doesn’t seem to have an “ultimate plan” and therefore doesn’t seem to really give a damn whether we survive or not or even that the earth bears life into the long future. If we care, nature cares. It’s really that simple.

    Someone asked me recently why I didn’t exchange my gas-guzzling pickup for something more fuel efficient. I told them I can do far more for the environment than the chronic but fuel-efficient driver by simply reducing my need to consume fuel and other vehicle-related products by decreasing my need to drive. Their indignation was predictable and characteristic of the reaction one gets to suggestions of self-control with regard to reproduction. Ironically, calls for self-control often wins one accusations of “selfishness” and “hedonism” as though it is the duty of every individual human being to create children.

  31. 31 Martin said at 2:06 am on August 24th, 2009:

    Adrian said – “What you are describing in paragraph four is known as a Malthusian crisis and society has changed since they were applicable. With modern technology nothing stands in the way of population growth.”

    Technological advance pushed back the dynamics of the Malthusian crisis, but it is still inevitable. We use fossil fuels to create nitrogen fertilizer and we mine phosphorous. Everybody has heard about ‘peak oil’ but only those who are really paying attention know about ‘peak phosphorus’

    The finite supplies of mineral phosphorous won’t last. Our capacity to grow food is set to drop in our lifetime and it will do so in the face of an ever increasing demand if we don’t tackle the issue of overpopulation now.

    I spite of this dire situation, I still concern myself with other issues like pollution.

  32. 32 McChip said at 10:58 am on August 25th, 2009:

    There is some validity to the argument that population may cause the decline of our civilization faster than pollution. But the food and resource scarcity brought about by a warming trend will also correct the population problem. One valuable watersource + multiple population vying for control= war on a devastating scale. Study the crisis in Darfur and you will see a brutal resource war being acted out right now. Population may be a problem but it won’t be if we start running out of food.

  33. 33 Kyttie said at 3:46 pm on August 27th, 2009:

    Wow. Just wow. You said something right here that no one wanted to say.

    Its true, if we reduce by 50% but the population increases by 50% we just did a lot for nothing. However this doesn’t mean we should just give up and forget about the green movement. We just need to figure out some fair population control (ha ha a pipe-dream, but still.)

    The green movement isn’t wasted effort though, think of what you described without the 50% reduction? I suggest picking up a reusable bag with your condoms.

  34. 34 RMFees said at 3:16 pm on September 4th, 2009:

    Thanks for following rmf5961. I just read your
    things, both seriously and humorously. Youve
    got more point that most people, and very few
    disagreements from me, so what though did you expect, because I’m different, I must have at least slightly a different opinion, or otherwise, how would you know I wasn’t you.
    Don’t you just love these stupid little comment that people like me can make on a decent day. Other days, I’ve said, the world is incorrigible and hopeless, it will take Divine Intervention, for the World of the Human and Alien Race to ever Change,
    and even then they won’t like it when God His or Herself, is taking control of all the changes! I too have said these things, including WILL THE HUMAN RACE EVER BE HAPPY AT ANYTHING? My friend says, Why do you let it upset, you, whatever they do? Look at the facts, she says. Fact is they don’t give a s— what you think. They are too much into their own s—! Even a civus biodigester wouldn’t work, for them, so don’t let it bother you, just do your own thing and don’t s— on others, because they’ll throw it back at you.
    So, you both are right.
    Thanks for writing the info i just read, before I wrote this comment! This has really improved my day!

  35. 35 Vance Longwell said at 11:07 am on September 12th, 2009:

    Say, I’m reluctant to link to my blog, but with the link on our IDs I thought it would be kool. To the author, I’m so glad to see folks speaking out like this. I have no love of destroying the Earth, but eradicating personal liberties in pursuit of protecting what’s essentially a giant rock hurtling through space is inhuman.

    Which is why I write stuff like this.

  36. 36 Tyler McCann said at 4:08 pm on September 22nd, 2009:

    This post gave me a hearty laugh! However on a more serious note I agree with your proposition in part. I agree that having fewer people in developed nations will decrease the amount of pollution however this is assuming the remaining people don’t continue to consume more and more.

    The three R’s: Reduce, reuse, recycle.
    Why don’t we ever pay attention to the first R?

    Oh that’s right because businesses need our money.

  37. 37 Luke said at 8:13 am on September 12th, 2010:

    Hey, good post. It is definitely a valid argument. I can’t agree with your stance for this main reason:

    Good leaders lead from the front. i.e. the developed countries have the power of creating the demand for goods that developing countries produce.


Leave a Reply