The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.
According to the international media, environmentalists, and Noble prize winners, the earth is in peril and humans are at fault. Each of us, and the industry that supports our way of life, is threatening the planet earth.
The threat is serious. Steps will be taken. The only question is who will take action? Will we human beings volunteer to make the necessary sacrifices? Or will Mother Nature do it for us?
Other than some technological breakthrough that will create something out of nothing, or turn Co2 into oxygen the only sure way to save the planet is to have fewer people. There are only three ways to achieve this goal.
- Move people off the earth.
- Decrease the amount of children born.
- Increase the amount of people who die.
Funding for NASA is slated for more cuts and the necessary technology needed to move people off earth, unfortunately, causes pollution. So that option is a non-starter.
Negative population growth is the only answer to the Earths ecological problems.
Maybe a slick awareness campaign would do the trick. Awareness ads work so well, that it may be all that is needed to solve this problem. “Save the planet get a vasectomy” would be a great ad slogan. Or maybe, exploiting the movie Soilent Green would help “Eat a human save the world”. At the very least it would stop all this diet nonsense.
Or maybe the problem should be approached by using our court system. If every crime was a capitol offence then not only would the population be reduced drastically, but the people left over would be much more civil (or else!)
Maybe we can combine both solutions and establish a new, new deal. Redistribute wealth from selfish people who have too many children to people with out kids. Then establish a death penalty for any couple who has more than one unregistered child.
But these ideas could take a long time.
Mother Nature is not that patient; she may not wait for us to solve this problem.
Here are some other ideas:
My first thought was war; however, this uses large amounts of explosives, vehicles and airplanes. These pollute like mad and should not be used. Also during war lots of things burn, like forests, buildings, butterflies, spotted owls, and kittens. This can’t be good for the environment. During wartime, an industrial complex is usually created to support all the fighting; this is counter to what is needed to save the planet. When people bomb the crap out enemy industry they tend to avoid large population centers, this is of course exactly what we don’t want. Let’s not forget the lesson of baby boomers. People re-produce like wild ferrets during and after war. Also who fights who? Population reduction should not play favorites, who decides?
It could be a disease that wipes out a large portion of humans; however, the richest countries have the best sanitation and health care. This would disproportionately affect poor countries. Again this is not fare.
Maybe a comet, or other space based calamity will cleanse the planet of dangerous human beings. However, there it is again, fire, and bruising the planet. Don’t want to hurt mother earth by whacking it with a big rock just to get rid of pesky parasites. That’s like getting rid of fleas by setting the dog on fire.
Mass suicide from guilt? Democrats are working on this, but it may not affect enough people in time. The rich and the politically connected don’t seem feel guilt like the rest of us. Maybe things will change with the results of the 2008 elections; we could loose a lot of neo-cons due to suicide. Which is just fine as, they are all too rich and pollute a too much, same for democrats if Huckabee is elected.
So how do you kill off a large portion off our population with out emitting greenhouse gasses, with out discriminating unfairly, and with out damaging the planet in the process?
Zombies could be the answer.
We can’t bring about a zombie apocalypse, but Mother Nature can. It may be the best solution, here is why….
There are many benefits to a zombie apocalypse. Remember we are looking at this from the point of view of Mother Nature, its earth herself, which will benefit from a zombie infestation.
A zombie produces much less Co2 than a live human.
Zombies don’t discriminate; they will eat anyone regardless of how lucky, rich, politically connected. Zombies don’t discriminate due to race, religion, ethnic background, sexual preference, sexual appearance, age, or any other factors that may be on an employment form.
Zombies don’t reproduce.
A zombie will eventually rot and produce fertilizer for trees and plants.
Zombies do not experience any technological progress; they have no need for material things and will never build factories that pollute the planet.
Zombies do not attack animals. Our furry friends will be much safer with out humans hunting then, killing them for food, or pestering them in rodeos.
Zombies don’t drink beer.*
Zombies can’t drive cars.
The main benefit to society would be of course a drastic reduction of human beings. This would enable a much smaller carbon foot print.
This may have a profound effect upon religious groups simply because of the fact that zombies don’t judge a persons piety before chowing down. Also many radicals would believe that this is the end of times and start chugging cool-aid. Both are a positive step in the right direction.
Rival factions and ethnic hatred may end due to the participants becoming so sick of killing that they may learn to respect life and stop all the pointless violence against the living. Yea, like this is going to happen.
And there are side benefits:
A lot of dangerous ammunition will be used up in useless fighting against the undead.
The US military will be able to kill people (zombies) right here in America, thus bringing the troops home from Iraq early.
Reality shows would be much more… well… realistic.
Endless new crime dramas like: Law and Order Zombie Intent, Shambling with the stars, and CSI-undead, these may actually produce interesting content.
The survivors would be stronger, tougher, and less likely to vote for gun control.
This would improve the species as a whole.
Medieval weapons will become much more valuable. This could revive the armor industry. Chain mail, horse back riding, and castle storming will make a huge comeback.
All this brings up an important question.
When do you say enough is enough and reach a state of equilibrium where humans are no longer a threat to the planet?
I will leave that question as an exercise for the reader.
So in conclusion, the planet can and will be saved. Possibly by population control, however, I am betting on a zombie apocalypse. If we are lucky some will survive to re-populate the earth; if not, maybe another species will evolve to dominate this planet again. Hopefully they will have the skills and resources to stave off extinction long enough to leave this planet and head for the stars where there is much more room to grow.
Peace is an extension of war by political means. Plenty of elbow room is pleasanter – and much safer.
*There are 4-7 grams of CO2 in each bottle of beer.