They All Have To Go!
Forevermore The First Day Of April Will Mark A New Beginning For Me. I Can See It All Clearly Now.
By Perry Hicks
I don’t know if it is the recent news that we have mercury in our fish, global warming will cause a new ice age, or we are entering the 5th Age of Mass Extinction. Somewhere along the line I have had an epiphany: Mother Earth is in danger and something has to be done to save her!
Notice that I didn’t use the words “save us” for it is now very clear to me that it is “we” who are the problem. You see, those things I previously mentioned all fit together like pieces of some sinister mosaic: Pull back and the individual tiles resolve to an image of our collective assault on nature through our struggle to achieve and maintain prosperity.
Prosperity is the result of abundance which is another way of saying people have too much stuff. Of course, in order for people to have too much stuff, someone else has had to have manufactured it; unfortunately, all this wanting and making and trading results in even more prosperity.
Why, pray tell, is prosperity bad? The stuff we want must be made from natural resources and, according to some, what resources we consume today will be forever lost to future generations. This makes the present taking, beyond the most Spartan of subsistence levels, tantamount to theft. Think about it: The future is a very long time; we cannot afford to pump, mine, and harvest until all of our resources are gone. After all, shouldn’t everything last until the sun dims to a white dwarf?
Prosperity wouldn’t be so bad if only a handful of people enjoyed it. Not only would fewer resources be used, but recycling the refuse would be easier and more affordable; there wouldn’t be so much discarded abundance to sort into various metals, plastic and glass. However, when large numbers of people begin living well too many resources are in demand. In order to stop all of this waste, living well must be brought to an end!
Take oil for example. If only a few privileged persons could afford motor cars then only a few strategically placed wells would be needed to lubricate and fuel them. The rich could drive their big SUVs as much as they liked and the environmental damage would be insignificant. However, when prosperity comes into play, most everyone owns a motor car and so we are tempted to drill wells most everywhere; even the Mississippi Sound.
What causes this pernicious prosperity? Evil capitalism: Like a cancer it grows exponentially making more and more people want to live better and better. Once exposed to it, people are no longer content to have little more than a few chickens and goats. They begin to demand all kinds of frivolous things such as adequate housing, a varied diet, adequate clothes, refrigerators and even air conditioners!
It’s a tough sell to go up against no-holds-barred consumerism. Prophets of Profit such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have convinced the masses that they are actually entitled to own their own homes, pursue their own dreams, and generally live at the expense of the teeming billions that are yet unborn!
On a happier note, capitalism does not necessarily guarantee prosperity; America’s periodic financial panics and economic depressions are proof to that. Our hope here is that social policy can make prosperity, even under capitalism, very difficult to achieve. To that end we can pile on plenty of governmental regulations and all manner of taxes. But nothing brings about poverty as well as ignorance. Thus, if we are to dispense with prosperity, we must also dispense with a good public education.
Colleges and Universities are noxious institutions anyway. For our purposes, if a child can count up to nine or ten, that should be deemed enough math education. If the same child can make its basic needs known through some combination of hand gestures and guttural vocalizations, then that child has more than adequate language skills- not to mention a good start toward becoming a Rap artist! And if the child can run down a good size pig and stab it to death with a sharpened stick, then that is certainly more than enough physical education (or would that be more appropriately deemed occupational training?)
The problem here is that not only are there far too many people alive today, but even more will be alive tomorrow. The truly insidious thing about capitalism is that it is able to support all these people at a level of health and comfort that actually extends life.
Yet, there is a paradox: If Capitalism were to end, these teeming billions would have to fall back on the land for their survival. Without oil and natural gas, trees would have to be felled for firewood and so wood smoke would pollute the air and forests would be denuded of trees; without fertilizers, crop yields would plummet forcing ever more acreage to come under the plow; without automobiles, trucks, and locomotives, animal power would come back into commercial use thus demanding even more acreage just to feed new millions of horses, mules, and oxen.
This nightmare scenario also has a bright side. Without large scale commercial farming billions of city dwellers in the western world would likely starve to death. Beasts of burden, chickens, milk cows, and other animals would fill our cities spreading disease to humans. Stressed by the heat, cold and hunger, the very young, the sick, and the old would succumb in droves.
Of course, with everyone doing manual labor, no one would ever have to worry about counting calories, carbs or percentages of fat. Indeed, the cardiovascular diseases and cancers that manifest themselves in our 50s would likely disappear altogether: Most people will simply not live that long.
Forward yourself into the future and imagine yourself at the end of the day, exhausted in pastoral repose. You could be proud that while you were out working gang labor in your Collective’s fields, other gangs had sown your clothes and cooked your ration of boiled cabbage. You work collectively, eat collectively, and sleep collectively.
Notice I didn’t say bathe collectively. It is unlikely your nose would be assaulted by the synthetic stench of soap and grooming products. In such a future, hot water would be scarce and you would likely smell as natural as the earth, plants, and animals. You might even learn to recognize your friends and family members by scent alone!
The Final Solution
As one contemplates the ecological impact of poverty, it becomes painfully apparent that simply crushing prosperity will not save the planet. The root cause runs deeper than that: The truth is that there are simply too many people. Accepting that brings a liberating sense of what must be done. The final solution is that they all have to go; at least most of them.
Of course, no matter how attractive mass extinction sounds, getting there won’t be easy. People have been brainwashed into thinking life is good and most individuals will cling to it with surprising tenacity. Obviously, some method must be employed to reduce the population. The question is, just what?
Do we want to take the time to deconstruct our cities or should we just let them fall into ruin and so be reclaimed by nature? Should the final population be in the millions, hundreds of thousands, or just a handful of hunter-gatherers?
Without direct intervention, it is unlikely that the population will ever decrease below where most major cities continue to exist. This poses a problem: Since these cities will be operating without the benefit of modern technology, the impact to the environment will be potentially greater than before de-industrialization. Clearly, rapid depopulation must continue unabated until the cities are reduced to little more than hunting villages.
For that reason, I suggest that a cadre of ecological scientists be formed to expedite the process along until project completion. Should depopulation stall for any reason, this cadre could restart it by introducing new diseases or committing large-scale genocide through advanced technological interventions. And to keep humans from socially redeveloping, a “stupid gene” could be introduced into human DNA keeping mankind in a perpetually torpid state. Can you say, “Planet of the Apes?”
This last point would necessitate the conservation individuals with the necessary bio-engineering expertise. There would also be need for some chemists, farmers, mechanics, engineers and medical personnel in order to maintain the supervising community.
Obviously, these scientific elite would have to be segregated from the rest of mankind. Such persons could be kept away within mountain top communities. In order to prevent exposing the rest of humanity to technology, monitoring could be done from aircraft giving rise to the possibility that a discarded soda-pop bottle would literally be worshipped as a deity. Coordination between the various monitoring communities would be facilitated by satellite phones/internet.
Of course, once earth’s human de-population is complete, the services of our cadre would no longer be needed. So, when their time came, they could toss back a glass of green Cool-Aid with justifiable pride in a job well done. As they close their eyes and pass unto the generations, they will know that the world is a better place for their selfless sacrifice. Precious resources will lie in the ground or under the waters, undisturbed, until the very end of time.
Yes, I can see it all so clearly now.
Perry Hicks is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics, and is a former Ford Motor Company technical trainer. He currently works as an Associate Professor of Automotive Technology at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College in Richmond, VA.
Contact the Author: firstname.lastname@example.org