An Environmental Upside to Feminism?

Post image for An Environmental Upside to Feminism?

by Featured Guest on October 20, 2012

By Stephen Gee

I’ve traveled a fair bit during my lifetime. In recent times I’ve either visited or lived and worked in China, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Thailand, Laos, UK, France and Germany. You could say I regularly ‘visit’ many places too – principally but not exclusively the UK, New Zealand, Australia, USA and Canada seeing as I’m an addicted netizen.

There are disturbing consistencies I’ve noticed in all these places which I’ve joined as ‘idea dots in my head’. Those dots are giving me an image I can’t really ignore and don’t like much.

Whether it be in Melbourne, Bangkok, Leeds, Ostend, Shanghai, Auckland, Los Angeles, Seoul or Berlin, it’s the same picture I observe, to a lesser or greater extent, but always the same picture.

Gridlock, pollution, waste, land, air, soil and waterways spoilt by……………. US.

Try, if it’s legal your way getting out of your car at a random spot and proceed to walk along the side of any major highway connecting cities anywhere for oh, say 100 meters. I’ve done this a few times on different continents but always with the same results – I’ve needed a plastic bag to collect the casually discarded cigarette packets, drink cans, bits of vehicles, glass bottles, and yes – plastic bags too.

Try finding rivers anywhere that humans exist in significant numbers that aren’t to some degree polluted.

Try finding a major natural, as in not man made, forest that isn’t degraded and shrinking.

Try breathing in downtown Shanghai, Paris or Auckland.

Try swimming in Bangkok’s Chao Phraya River. Try finding green space anywhere in inner Shanghai or Seoul.

Try finding beaches near any urban center that aren’t to some degree strewn with washed up garbage – most usually plastic.

Try moving between any two major cities anywhere on the planet by road transport during busy times without being in a traffic jam.

From what I can see unless humans radically alter their behavior you won’t be able to do any of these things, not now and not in your lifetimes. The way things are headed possibly your children and grandchildren won’t be able to do those things in their lifetimes either.

Demographers tell us there are now 6 Billion humans inhabiting planet earth. They tell us that given current trends 3 important and converging demographic forces are on the near horizon.

First global population is increasing – some demographers reckon we’ll be at anywhere between 7.5 and 10.5 billion by 2050.

Secondly, more and more people are living in energy hungry cities which are relatively alienated from nature compared to rural and wilderness areas.

Lastly Billions of people worldwide aspire to the materialist levels of existence experienced by western / first world countries.

Adding these three factors together I can get the sinking feeling that during my lifetime I’m only going to see more of the somewhat ‘Silent Spring’ like scenes I’ve described above.

Then enter feminism (aided and abetted by misguided chivalry) and it’s unleashing of the materialist, hypergamous modern female.

Much has been spoken here and at A Voice for Men about the prevalence of sexist greed inherent in feminism, and of the forces of hypergamy in females being an instinct which left unchecked by culture leads women to use men as resource providing disposable appliances. Also much has been written at this site of men’s part in our current malaise – men who in cowtowing to their instincts to mate giving women the pussy pass and overindulging women generally with misandric laws and social conventions.

So I’ll try not to bore my audience by belaboring my point about such matters too much.

It’s simply this – given the growing international cultural meme that for men relationships with modern women come with terrible risks attached, and with the inevitability relatively soon of more forms of male birth control I’m beginning to have a line of thought that feminists unwittingly and inadvertently are doing us all a favor.

Namely that in the not too distant future more and more enlightened men, put off by modern women’s voracious appetite and empowered with their own new forms of birth control will become a powerful force to depopulate the planet to more environmentally sustainable and unpolluted levels.

Perhaps then I’ll come to owe feminists another ‘thank you’.

After all they’ve already inspired me to go my own way and become a human being rather than women’s appliance as I formerly was.

So perhaps I’ll someday also be thanking them for inspiring millions upon millions of men to protect themselves against women’s baser instincts and become the Green wing of Men’s Rights Activism.

It’s an intriguing thought isn’t it?

{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }

Zorro October 20, 2012 at 06:59

At best that theory is very flighty. The reduction in population required to make an environmental difference would be so huge it would most likely incite mass migrations and wars for resources.

If something is bad, the sudden lack of something can be even worse.

Remember Prohibition?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself October 20, 2012 at 07:01

I thought that the birth control that gets injected into a man’s junk will not be on the market until 2015.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
YouSoWould October 20, 2012 at 07:12

Global population will not increase indefinitely. Families in developing countries necessarily have more children to provide a workforce to sustain themselves. With the prevalence of technology available in 1st world countries, this is not required and birth rates decline. A balance point will be hit.

Things such as air quality and water pollution levels have actually improved drastically in developed countries in the last 50 years. Developing countries must however divert all spare resources to dragging themselves out of poverty, and can not afford the luxury of environmentalism, and therefore don’t. Once a society is sufficiently developed to produce a surplus of resources, such aspects may be considered.

There are plenty of resources left on earth. As certain resources become scarce, market forces cause the price to rise, and drives the development of alternative extraction technologies to the point where they are viable. Net agricultural yield has, and continues to outstrip population growth.

In short, I believe the “problem” of which you speak is transient in nature, and will self correct in time, given a relevant level of awareness of environmental protection – which does exist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Athol Kay October 20, 2012 at 08:12

Can’t speak for the rest of this post, but you’ve quite obviously never in your life been to Auckland, New Zealand. There’s just no possible way a city that’s surrounded by water on both sides, on an isthmus between the Tasman Sea and the Pacific Ocean is going to ever get polluted and suffer smog.

Downtown Auckland is on the water front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Skeptic October 20, 2012 at 08:41

Actually I’ve lived in Auckland and had to avoid certain areas of the city during peak traffic times. I found NZers were notoriously lazy in getting their diesel SUVs and trucks tuned regularly.
The air was as bad there as anything I experienced in Bangkok even though you’re right about it’s geographical features.
According to this article air pollution in Auckland is as bad as in Tokyo.
Having visited Tokyo I agree -

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10754865

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster October 20, 2012 at 08:43

You’re not talking about global over-population here, you’re talking about the migration of workers from the country to the big cities, where jobs and economic opportunities abound. In third world countries the women don’t think about empowerment and independence from men, abortion or contraception. On the contrary they’re having more babies than ever, and hoping to emmigrate to countries offering a better life.

Look at Canada with Muslims, Chinese and Indians. And of course the USA with Mexicans and Latin Americans. Feminism is retarding the growth of Caucasian and Negro populations. Races or Ethinicities less effected by Feminist Orthodoxy will proliferate. By 2050 the USA will be majority non-white/hispanic – – because family, religion and a work ethic are the essence of their value system.

Over population is not a problem being solved by feminism. Huge demographic shifts and migration to “big city life” are a problem being caused by feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Revo Luzione October 20, 2012 at 08:56

Bravo!

Great post. I for one am thankful that the birth rate is crashing in industrialized nations. The gerontocracies in the US, Japan, and most of Europe, have created a demographic time bomb that has already started its slow-motion destruction.

These states rely upon ever expanding numbers of new “workers” to pay tribute to the previous generation, who heaped upon themselves massive benefits and conspicuous consumption, creating the pollution you articulated in your post.

The earth does not have infinite resources. At some point, we will run up against hard limits, geological limits, to growth. I believe we’re there. As Ed Abbey said, “Unrestrained growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

Feminism is just one outgrowth of the rampant consumerism that gripped the planet in the last century. A hard reset would benefit all of us. The irony, and the beauty is, most humans will be drastically happier when consumerism, and its pernicious outgrowth, feminism, falls.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel October 20, 2012 at 09:00

Feminism and a cleaner environment are correlated but one does not cause the other.

Yes, the US has cleaner air and water than China or Thailand. The reason? We can afford clean air and water, they can’t.

This is all elegantly captured by something called the Environmental Kuznets Curve. The logic is simple. Poor countries pollute very little as they have low levels of economic and industrial activity. Wealthier, industrializing countries pollute a lot as they have the industrial activity without the environmental regulation. Wealthy countries pollute much less as a clean environment becomes a public good that everyone is willing to pay for. There’s a great real world example of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for US sulphur dioxide emissions in this NYT article.

Western environmentalism is now the secular religion of politically correct socialist zealots. They are the modern equivalent of medieval witch finders who pursue the solutions to their imaginary environmental problems with the same religious zeal. Just ask the citizens of France who will shortly have to petition some socialist bureaucrat for the continuance of their electricity supply.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JoeS October 20, 2012 at 09:02

You’re confusing correlation with causation. Cleanliness comes at a cost that first world nations can afford. As does feminism. Unfortunately, behind the “cleanliness” of modern women and the environment of modern western countries there’s a lot of filth and degradation that isn’t readily apparent to the eye.

A healthy dirty child on a farm is probably better off than today’s daycare kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
John David Galt October 20, 2012 at 09:42

Environmentalism — all of it — is leftist BS. See green-agenda.com for its leaders’ true agenda.

And anyone who still believes population growth is bad, needs to read the works of Julian Simon, especially “The Ultimate Resource”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian October 20, 2012 at 09:59

Any relief to the environment from feminism will be short lived.

So what if spinsters fail to have children and the growth population is reduced?

Like many other things in society, all of this environmental protection is completely dependent on the massive surplus of wealth generated by western males.

The conservationist agencies, fish hatcheries, game management, and the law enforcement officers that protect endangered species are all funded by taxes on the private sector.

As the economy declines, the money for the luxury of protecting the environment will vanish.

Societies that are desperately struggling to scrape by are typically the most environmentally destructive.

If ( or when?) the collapse happens, you can bet all the pollution controls will be thrown out the window if only because there wont be anyone able to enforce them.

You can also kiss goodbye to all the endangered species when Ranger Rick’s government check bounces.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus October 20, 2012 at 10:01

For me the best lines or parts of lines reads:

“for men relationships with women come with terrible risks attached”

and later

” put off by modern women’s voracious appetites”

In fact it is even worse than that, for even not being involved with a woman can nevertheless lead to delusional and false allegations. I’d like to see some conclusive evidence of the marriage strike because I know I cannot be the only one increasingly nervous of virtually any interaction with the female sex. Every married man I know is secretly or not so, terrified that his wife will issue the nuclear rejection and ruin him emotionally and financially on Divorce – never mind the damage done to offspring. This cannot be good for humans. Stories in the news suggest to me – of men slaughtering their entire family and self – that that breaking point is almost upon us.

The recent video of the Cleveland bus-driver shows both women’s delusional beliefs as to male inevitable behaviour and what will happen when men cease to put themselves second out of (misplaced) chivalry.

I was reading (on-line) a love letter from 1963 where the intended bride writes to her fiancee ‘I looking forward so much to being your wife’ I do not quite think any woman would write like that today – and yet that letter is only just under fifty years old. How times have changed – and will change again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 20, 2012 at 11:41

The one upside I see in feminism is the freedom it inadvertedly gave to men. This may well end up in a decrease in overall human population.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo October 20, 2012 at 12:24

I don’t agree.

The last article posted before this one pointed out that the costs of feminism are socialized but the benefits are privatized – for women only.

IOW, the men who don’t have kids still end up paying for the kids fathered by other men. Not fathering a child in person does NOT cause a net reduction in population if the prospective mother simply gets knocked up by another guy. That’s exactly what women do today.

If anything, this will accelerate the destruction of the environment because single mothers don’t usually pick the best men as the fathers of their kids. The end of “patriarchy” implies that these kids won’t be raised by men but by women. They will be far more likely to vote for socialists instead of capitalists. To borrow some lingo from ancient Rome, we will have fewer and fewer patricians and more and more proles. That is not a recipe for success, either for Rome or for the West today.

A socialist society that does not invest in developing new technology or new sources of energy will simply continue to consume the existing resources until they run out. We will see more pollution and less prosperity. It could even lead to more wars over resources like the Gulf War, the Iraq war, etc.

As long as there are no limits placed on the ability of women to consume resources, even resources provided by men whom they have never even met, we will see more environmental decay and degradation. Plus more resource wars. Thanks, feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ron October 20, 2012 at 12:37

This is more nihilistic nonsense. Human beings are not the problem, a wrecked culture of voracious consumption without responsibility is the problem.

There was a time when the culture appreciated having the best and brightest working on the farm. Then some bastards realized they could make a ton of cash if they could convince the best and brightest to work in the city while they took advantage of the idiots that remained. Hence our insane industrial food supply.

Out problem is not laws, or government, it’s culture. Its the reason we accept so much intrusive and emasculating bullshit. Culture doesnt come from women, it comes from men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
biff October 20, 2012 at 13:27

If feminsim targeted all populations equally this would be a great piece, but since it doesn’t it isn’t… The best and the brightest (at least if you look at average IQ scores) are the ones who are not reproducing–massive population growth isn’t coming from them, but it is coming. If intelligence is at all hereditary (and most genetists would agree that it is to a large extent), this is going to be a disaster. Not only do we no longer allow idiots to starve, but we often subsidize the costs of their reproduction… meanwhile my wife seems totally burned out with one kid and would rather be able to focus on her career, so I’m not exactly an impartial observer, I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gilgamesh October 20, 2012 at 14:40

Wow look at all the new posters that suddenly appeared here to plug depopulation. They don’t care about the environment, they just know a smaller number of people will be easier to control.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Rod Van Mechelen October 20, 2012 at 16:02

Fred Pearce writes in The Coming Population Crash that population will peak at about 8 billion and then settle to less than 6 billion, all due to irreversible trends that are in place today. The primary cause is that women in almost all countries are choosing to have fewer children. In addition, families in Asia and India have stupidly selected to favor the birth of boys over the birth of girls. Consequently, in parts of Asia and India they are already experiencing a shortage of marriage-age women. Ironically, within about 20 years this will begin to be offset by the fact that women in the west are selecting to favor the birth of girls over boys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 20, 2012 at 16:16

‘and with the inevitability relatively soon of more forms of male birth control I’m beginning to have a line of thought that feminists unwittingly and inadvertently are doing us all a favor.’

Nature works in very inexplicable ways especially when it concerns reproduction. Sometimes we consciously think we’re doing something for one reason when in fact our unconscious instinctual mind has other plans and is leading us without us understanding its true intent.
A lot of people including scientists, and especially females, may believe that inventing the male pill is good because it relieves the female of that responsibility and that men aren’t doing their fair share.
But the reality may be quite different. Most of what we say is influenced by society, but what we naturally do is controlled by the unconscious and our brains and instincts are no different that they were 50k years ago. Inventing a male pill may simply be Nature’s way of restoring a balance of power and putting men in charge of reproduction in a more advanced way(in the past when the land and game in an area wasn’t sufficient for the humans they would simply kill infants to keep the pop. down) the story of Abraham is a remnant of this where god told him to sacrifice his son but then stopped him;it was written well after its time and shows the transition from primitive to more modern ways of doing things and after farming and domesticated animals for food had been established.
The male is the dominant sex, the female the subordinate in Nature. The male leads while the female follows and copies. It was a male who first discovered that sex caused pregnancy and later that a specific male was the father of a child. It was a male who eplained to the female how her reproductive system works even though you would expect the female to figure this out just by chance and repetition how it worked. Itwas also the male surgeon(Knauer) who discovered why a female menstruates and put an end to all of the old wives tales about it (btw this was fairly recent in the 1890′s and when there were a numer of female doctors in Europe). It’s amazing to me that females couldn’t figure this out since it effected their own bodies since humans have existed.
It’s apparent to me that Nature intended the male to be in charge of the female and sort of lead and think for her. The female has a natural urge to reproduce(her brain knows that there is an organ in her body and is subconsciously telling her that it needs to be used) and yes, a male has this same urge to reproduce (sex) but since the female won’t use all of the birth control methods available in this overpopulated world the thinking male will take over and do it for her by surpressing his ability to impregnate with his own birth control method. He’ll also stop females from draining his assets and destroying the world with overpopulation by having kids, something he has no control over these days.
I predict that the pop. of the world will decrease and in fact in China it is now 1.55, below replacement rates.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Φ October 20, 2012 at 16:45

I was in China in ’95 on a four-city tour. Shanghai, ironically, had far cleaner air than Beijing or any other place we visited. It was cleaner in general, more prosperous, had better architecture, and was in general the only city I could imagine living in.

There was another city, the name of which I forget, but gave the appearance of being pre-modern, almost third world. It’s air was probably the worst of the bunch. Every morning, hoards of workers would show up to sweep the dust off the sidewalks into the streets . . . and the day’s traffic would promptly blow the dust back on the sidewalks. A never ending churn making the air a suffocation.

I was in Afghanistan in 2010-2011. Another basically pre-modern city. Modern sources of fuel are apparently out of reach of much of the population. To heat their houses, they would apparently sun-dry their own feces and then burn it, creating a misasma of crap that the occupation forces got to enjoy. Supposedly (and I will admit that I don’t know this from an authoritative source, only word of mouth around ISAF), troops stationed there for a sufficient period qualified automatically for disability in anticipation of lung-related issues. I myself chose to wear a breath mask for most of the tour.

So I align myself with Charles Martel, above: positive environmental outcomes are luxuries only the rich can afford.

I also agree with biff: negative population growth strikes very unevenly, not just among demographics but among nations as well. This is going to matter A LOT in terms of relative power, both inter- and intra-nationally.

Japan (whose air never posed any problem for me back in ’94-’95 btw) is the most advanced along the curve of demographic decline. Technologically, they have managed this pretty well, avoiding the temptation to surrender their country to hoards of immigrants. But even they haven’t figured out the financing in a politically or financially sustainable way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chris October 20, 2012 at 16:48

Firstly, Skeptic is correct about Auckland and pollution … if you are in the main street. It is in a valley, and the air quality is awful. Other parts of Auckland do not have as much of a problem…. but the real cure is to not live in highly populated areas.

Secondly, the culture of hypermaterialistic greed and uberfeminism leads to a population crash. Right now. Before any male pill. So the problem of big cities full of girrrlz will correct fairly quickly: girrlz don’t breed (or cannot afford to breed once social welfare collapses, which again, is happening right now).

The trick is to live in the more conservative (and preferably emptier) parts of your country, and avoid those who have bought into the zombie feminist lifestyle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
troll king October 20, 2012 at 18:03

OT.

Apparently women don’t always win in international custody disputes….how sad for them./s

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/19/british-expat-couples-children

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Avenger October 20, 2012 at 19:39

Secondly, the culture of hypermaterialistic greed and uberfeminism leads to a population crash. Right now. Before any male pill

Oh yes,I agree.But the male pill is going to take reproduction completely out of the hands of the female, forever.
And I wouldn’t believe this feminist bullshit about making babies on their own because it’s not going to happen without sperm.Even if by some miracle they figure out how to trigger the egg to divide they can only produce a female.The male contributes either a Y to produce a boy, or a X for a girl. But his X for the girl may be entirely different than the female just using her own material which will likely lead to birth defects. We don’t even know today how identical twins develope from 1 egg.
Even if we did have a population of 90% female that would only benefit men more.90% of the tapaying workers would be female and they wouldn’t be so eager to give benefits to inferior females.Females, like politicians, only like to give men’s money away.
And even if they could produe girls on their own they would still have the instinct to reproduce and have sex with men.So boys, get really for the harem. Sure, maybe the rich alpha male will have 30 and the poor guy will only have 5 but we’ll never have to pay anything :) In fact, I’m writing the lyrics to a song based on the Loretta Lynn song but it will be called “Daddy’s Got The Pill” :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
troll king October 20, 2012 at 20:03

OT.

A male genius died of prostate cancer today. We should all look around our homes and realize that without him we wouldn’t have a large percentage of the things, mostly electronics, that we do have today. And feminists bitch about the lack of women in STEM fields. This guy didn’t even go to college.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-stanford-ovshinsky-20121021,0,4675062.story

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Avenger October 20, 2012 at 21:09

Mama’s Got The Pill-Loretta Lyn

You wined me and dined me
When I was your girl
Promised if I’d be your wife
You’d show me the world

But all I’ve seen of this old world
Is a bed and a doctor bill
I’m tearin’ down your brooder house
‘Cause now I’ve got the pill.

All these years I’ve stayed at home
While you had all your fun
And every year thats gone by
Another babys come.

There’s a gonna be some changes made
Right here on nursery hill
You’ve set this chicken your last time
‘Cause now I’ve got the pill.

This old maternity dress I’ve got
Is goin’ in the garbage
The clothes I’m wearin’ from now on
Won’t take up so much yardage.

Miniskirts, hot pants
And a few little fancy frills
Yeah, I’m makin’ up for all those years
Since I’ve got the pill.

I’m tired of all your crowin’
How you and your hens play
While holdin’ a couple in my arms
Another’s on the way.

This chicken’s done tore up her nest
And I’m ready to make a deal
And ya can’t afford to turn it down
‘Cause you know I’ve got the pill.

This incubator is overused
Because you’ve kept it filled
The feelin’ good comes easy now
Since I’ve got the pill.

It’s gettin’ dark it’s roostin’ time
Tonight’s too good to be real
Oh, but daddy don’t you worry none
‘Cause mama’s got the pill.

Oh, daddy don’t you worry none
‘Cause mama’s got the pill…

*****************************************************

Daddy’s Got The Pill-Avenger version

You whined at me and drived me
When I was your boy
Promised if I’d be your hubby
That I wouldn’t be your toy

But all I’ve seen in your world
Is a debt and a workin’ in the mill
I’ma teain’ down your whorehouse
‘Cause now I got the pill.

All these years I’ve slaved to the bone
While you had all the fun
And every year that went by
You must have gained a tonne.

That old baby dress you got
Is a goin’ in the garbage
And the next one you’ll be a wearin’
Is gonna take up a lot more yardage

Payin’ for all your slut clothes
And for you to get your thrill
So yeah, now you can fuck yourself
‘Cos I’ll a be sittin up on Blueberry Hill

I’m a tired of all your bitchin’
And the way you old cunts play
While planning another little accident
To this, I say no way.

This roster’s done torn off his chains
And I’m tellin’ it to you for real
So why don’t you just buzz off
‘Cos Daddy’s got the pill.

This work machine you overused
To keep your pockets filled
I’m a realing feelin’ good now
Since I got the pill.

It’s getting dark and shagging time
And now I’ll get my thrill
So Mama don’t you fret you none
“Cos I’ll be up here on Bluberry Hill.

And Mama don’t you worry none
‘Cos Daddy’s got the pill :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Avenger October 20, 2012 at 21:40

Troll-Edison only attended school for 3 months

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Josh the Aspie October 20, 2012 at 23:20

Ah. Yet another poster propagating the ‘running out of resources’ myth. I’m actually rather surprised to find this on a manosphere blog.

There’s reams of information out there on why this cultural meme is fundamentally flawed, and it’s late, so I won’t reproduce it, or bother looking for it tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

But I will say this. People care about taking care of themselves and their families first of all. Once that is taken care of, most will happily look after the environment as a whole, as they are looking out for future generations. As a result, the wealthiest nations and areas tend to have the best conservation.

If you shrink the population base, you will reduce the ability of the work force to specialize, and therefore to produce a given amount of wealth per person. As a result, the environment will actually take a huge hit.

Humans are great at exploring resources, and finding new ones, which we don’t yet even know (or need to know) are resources. When resources start to become scarce, we will find an alternative without government interference. Unfortunately, the government is trying to force this to occur early, which increases the costs of the conversion, and sends us heavily into debt. If the government would just stop pushing the rope, and wait for the rope to pull the government along after, things would be easier on us all.

Also, all natural landscapes change. I don’t particularly understand your emphasis on natural forests declining when the number of forests are increasing as a whole, based on planting and terra-forming by humans.

That said, in many western cultures there is, in my personal opinion, an over-emphasis on “stuff”, one which I have had to resist in myself, truth be told. I can agree that reducing this focus would be a good thing for a lot of people.

That said, I can’t really see that happening if we let our communities break down, rather than building them up. Unfortunately, one of the things that feminism is good at is destroying and tearing apart community, to replace it with varieties of Marxism, and over-regulation.

As a whole, this article is well below the standard I’ve come to enjoy thus far on The Spearhead. Still, thank you for sticking your neck out and writing an article to provide us with content. The effort is appreciated, even if I disagree with your post as a whole.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
ce9999 October 20, 2012 at 23:25

Actually, the world population has already crossed the 7 billion mark. I’m not sure when it was, maybe earlier this year. I think I recall reading about it in the news.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn October 20, 2012 at 23:54

“After all they’ve already inspired me to go my own way and become a human being rather than women’s appliance as I formerly was”

Good for you :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray October 21, 2012 at 03:56

It isn’t cities that are energy-hungry, it’s suburbs. Medium to high density living with decent public transport (or at least good roads) surrounded by green belts is the way to go.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Avenger October 21, 2012 at 04:54

geographybeefinalisthimself October 20, 2012 at 07:01

I thought that the birth control that gets injected into a man’s junk will not be on the market until 2015

That’s been around for a while. You don’t sever the ductus deferens but merely block it with like a glue , for lack of a better word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Glenn October 21, 2012 at 07:10

Of all the places I would have expected to see someone advocate for a self-destructive Hegelian Dialectic, this would have been the last place.

Maybe Rage Against The Machine said it best; “There is no other pill to take, so swallow the one that makes you ill”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anon2 October 21, 2012 at 13:16

The problem with this is that the only people able to afford this contraceptive, that will eventually depopulate the earth, will be the rich. And the only people who will use it will be those intelligent enough to forsee the dangers of overpopulation.

Hence, the people left passing their genes on will be those of average intelligence and monetary resources. (This is assuming that those too poor to afford the contraceptive won’t use it, unless it is provided and forced upon them by the state, and those of lesser intelligence in society who can’t work out how the game works won’t have the chance to mate).

Please tell me this logic is incorrect…?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Skeptic October 21, 2012 at 17:29

To those who don’t know about it, there IS a Non Hormonal Male Contraceptive Pill on sale in Indonesia this year.
It derives from a plant – Gandarusa.
Just Google it.
It’s one of MANY new forms of MALE contraception being developed around the world.
Just do a web search.
Get informed, it’ll give you hope.

I see there’s some level of ignoring and denial about the level of environmental degradation that currently exists.
Ah well, Some folks will live in shit up to their eyeballs before they notice it.

Interesting ideas about underdeveloped nations continuing to breed in prolific numbers, yet they omit what seems obvious – when those nations become developed surely they’ll reduce family size too (all the more rapidly with emerging new male contraceptives!)
The population bubble.

I suspect some of the criticism isn’t well thought through, but emotional knee-jerk reaction to the flippant satirical comment about giving thanks to feminism for giving incentive for MGTOW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wulf October 21, 2012 at 20:31

…the Mississippi River, will boil from the heat of the “gourd of ashes” that will fall on this land…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 21, 2012 at 20:42

“The problem with this is that the only people able to afford this contraceptive, that will eventually depopulate the earth, will be the rich”
The rich are already reproducing and in general marry females who have assets so this wouldn’t effect them.The cost of the drug may be low if it’s a generic and you can buy it at Walmart or Target etc under their $4 a month prescriptions. They lose money on this and it’s just to get you into the store to buy other junk and btw, female birth control pills are on the list of $4 drugs. I was passing a Target once and went in to talk to the pharmacist and looked at the list so I don’t know why these bitches are complaining about the cost. Even if the male pill was still under patent it may not be so expensive, or if it is taken on a per use basis like Viagra and is not something that has to be taken daily. Patents aren’t even as long as they were in the past and expire sooner which means that any generic drug co. can make it. Viagra expired this year but due to a technicality it was extended to 2020 (it was approved for another condition and the co. argued that they should keep the patent longer) But sooner or later patents expire and the cost drops radically so long range the price on any male pill will be low.

The whole point of a male pill is to keep the female from being in control of birth control and not being aware of which male they shag who is using it.

“(This is assuming that those too poor to afford the contraceptive won’t use it, unless it is provided and forced upon them by the state, and those of lesser intelligence in society who can’t work out how the game works won’t have the chance to mate).”

Not if they can’t get CS or if benefits are cut. Men at the bottom either can’t pay CS or just won’t do it. Putting them in jail (if you can find them) doesn’t solve anything because then the State will have to give poor females money and if there are enough of them there won’t be money to support them all even at a subsistence level and that’s not going to be too nice for these girls. The point is to make their lives unpleasant for them when they are irresponsible. Younger girls will see this and learn. When the State runs things they make everything too easy. Fill out a few forms and you got your benefits/foodstamps /health benefits on your electronic card every month and you’re living almost like a middle class person.

The male pill will be of great use. I’m sure that some guy who screws some female he met a few times was not intending to make 216 CS payments if she gets knocked up. The whole point is to take reproduction out of female hands.
And those who do want to marry and have kids should be very careful that the female has more to lose than them in a divorce. You don’t choose some female with no assets or a good job with a $100k credit card debt, unpaid student and other loans etc. because she’s the type who will get knocked up in a month and won’t be paying any of those things. You will. And you won’t even have that nice slim girl for sex because she’d be a 200lb pregnant female :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wanderling October 29, 2012 at 03:34

Not sure what you’re worried about. There are now only 4 pharmaceutical companies on the globe that are doing R&D on antibiotics, because your cholestral drug is a bigger money spinner than antiobiotics. Simultaneously superbugs are spawning. In three years bugs will be totally antiobiotic resistant. Then we’ll get down to more manageable human population levels and you can clap your hands in glee.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sigil October 31, 2012 at 14:06

The modern, consumerist, narcissistic expression of feminism is an individualist, neo liberal conservative, market and capitalism friendly appropriation of feminism while the true feminism is the collectivist, radical feminism which is anti-market. Funnily, the former think they are the true feminists and clam the latter are the fringe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
busty adrem web cam December 13, 2012 at 11:41

Pornography is all right if you are a grown-up – just in moderation.
However, they genuinely provide one-time membership
with the features and including renewal date.
I’ll probably never get accustomed to chatting, within my work room, with someone twelve thousand miles away in Indonesia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Giovanni Dannato December 14, 2012 at 16:52

Surely the composition of a population by proportion makes the biggest difference.
There likely wouldn’t be any need for slums, poverty, scarcity in a society of 7 billion people possessing a requisite level of intelligence and foresight.
Meanwhile in our present world, it’s perfectly possible to find a village of 1,000 beset by every form of human misery.
Is population itself really the main problem?

When a critical percentage of the population is locked in competition over immediate goals, even those who know better are inevitably dragged into the fray with them…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Joe American December 15, 2012 at 19:06

In many western countries a demographics shift has already happened and is continuing. Feminism has slowed population growth but it has also caused and will continue to cause large demographics shifts replacing feminist infected populations. Other feminist resistant populations, chicks on meth for instant, all they care about is meth sex and more meth, they tend to have larger family sizes. I know about the marriage strike and some guys going abroad, there numbers are just too small to have much local effect, really they have the biggest impact abroad. The fatherless generation, thanks to feminism, will have its degenerative effect which is just getting started. Women selling there soul to the government and giving everyone ease’s freedom away for a meal ticket will like have a very bad ending.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: