Carbon is a basic component of all living beings. That’s why we use radiocarbon dating to find out how old things are. Carbon 14 exists in all organic matter and it decays at a constant enough rate we can use it to determine how long something living has been in the ground.
Which is why when environmentalists start talking about reducing carbon, someone will say that we are the carbon they want to reduce.
Undoubtedly, someone will step in and claim that’s not true at all.
A prime example came a few months back when Jane Goodall started talking about how we needed fewer people on the planet.
Speaking to the World Economic Forum, Goodall said, “We cannot hide away from human population growth because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.”
The implication is clear. We should depopulate the planet to the population of the world around 1524, which was around 461 million people.
Reuters, however, was ready to swoop in and say that context was missing, that Goodall never actually said the word “depopulation” and thus there was no reason to think she was advocating for it.
Unless you expressly say that wasn’t remotely possible or desirable in the aftermath of a bomb like that, though, you don’t really get to pretend the implication is out of line. Goodall seems to think that a smaller population would be far more desirable.
And it’s not just Goodall, either. I didn’t even know about her comments in February until I started discussing this
For the record, Atheist Girl has about 59,000 or so followers on X, formerly Twitter, so she’s not exactly a tiny account.
Here again, we have someone talking about depopulating the planet, this one to the tune of “shaking off” about 86 percent of the population. It’s not as extreme as Goodall’s implication, but it’s still downright extreme.
As someone pointed out on Facebook, MCU villain Thanos just wanted to remove 4 billion people from the planet. Both Atheist Girl and Goodall make him look unambitious.
They want there to be fewer people, and let’s understand something, they’re not talking about themselves. If they were, they’d follow their words up with deeds. They’d remove themselves from the population so as to not strain the planet.
They’d try to do their part to make the planet happy.
But they’re not. They’re not because their carbon is fine. It’s yours and mine that is the problem. Never mind the arguments to the contrary, we just need fewer people.
And here’s the thing, I could almost accept this if it meant pushing governments and private industry to step up space colonization efforts. Not only would it mean the human race would have a better chance of surviving an extinction-level event happening here on Earth but it would relieve the alleged population pressure that is supposedly dooming us all.
Yet somehow these same people will oppose the colonization of space by saying, among other stupid things, that we should focus on solving problems here.
If Malthusian doomsaying is right, wouldn’t sending people somewhere else solve a big problem?
Imagine if we could colonize enough other planets that we could get down to a population on Earth of about 450 million people, all without having to exterminate large swaths of people. How is that not a win-win scenario?
Honestly, my own thoughts on this is that depopulation in the name of a cleaner environment is just the excuse. What they want is a way to look compassionate while exterminating their enemies.
Note that most of them aren’t exactly lining up to be the first to alleviate the burdens on Mother Earth. They’re expecting others to do it and conveniently, many of them also seem to favor lining folks like me up against the wall.
We, as organic, living beings, are made up of a significant amount of carbon.
We are, in fact, the carbon they want to reduce.
And we will continue to get these twits nibbling around the edges, pretending they didn’t say what they did, all in hopes that one day, someone won’t be outraged and upset and they can follow through.
The problem with their plan? A lot of us have guns and a deep, abiding hatred of being made extinct.
So tell ya what, folks. You want this carbon reduced? Then get in the stack and take your chance outside my front door or shut the hell up and go back to your basements and pretend you matter.
Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here. Your support is greatly appreciated.
I'm a fan of "You First!". [Twisted Grin]
Additionally, they'll decry Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide" (if the Israelis were being genocidal, they're doing a lousy job of it), but remain completely oblivious to the very literal genocide they're calling for as self-appointed planetary spokesbeings.
If somehow they manage to get their supposed paradise, the only consolation would be that THEIR carbon would be sequestered as well, in a shallow mass grave, all the while pleading that they were good Party members as they're being herded to the pit, like Beria was said to be doing as he was being dragged off to his execution after his patron Stalin died.