ideological Human Wreckage

Okay, i just can’t take this anymore. Leading environmentalists claim that driving is worse than walking for all of the emitted pollutants. Now, someone else claims that walking does more damage to the environment than driving. Granted, i am, here in this blog entry, glossing over the nuances of food production, energy requirements and carbon emissions, &c.

So i propose a new solution to global pollution and minimizing the human footprint. We should all commit seppuku by throwing ourselves into volcanoes, where we won’t pollute the air, ocean, landfills, or McDonald’s parking lots.

Yet, even this drastic solution is not without setbacks. By proposing that all humans toss themselves from the prying pan into the fire, we are making mass assumptions about various cultural, ethnic, special interest, and lobbyist focii. This would, in effect, imply (in no certain order (for certain order implies preferential treatment (which is exactly what the Arabian mathematicians and Hindi mathematicians wanted when they devised numerical systems)) that:

• Gays have polluted the planet as much as everyone else when their quest has been only for the ability to come out and play right in front of everyone(and don’t you even think of not giving them preferential treatment) and if you don’t watching two penises play twister with other you must be a playa hater



• it would also suggest that republicans endure the same fate as democrats (oh, surely you don’t mean that i can’t build a loophole for myself)



• it would suggest that democrats wouldn’t be able to demand — no — whine for special consideration for all the evils they want to rid the world



• This solution also doesn’t respect the inconvenient truth that even Al Gore uses global resources



• it would mean that anti-faith ascetics couldn’t research on more ways to convince the world of the evils of religion through conditioning modern education (when, ironically, reading standards are still appalingly low)(but they claim that lack of education is the fault of the Christian religion even though the central repository of Christian ideas is a book (a thing which requires literacy)



• various ethnic groups (including white supremacists) could no longer claim to contribute to sociopolitical unity by isolating themselves from every other group in tax-funded compounds community centers for making all people “aware” of them while making them ignorant (and ethnocentric of themselves) of other ethnic groups



• organized religious groups would be averse to this because they would get no exclusions to social repercussion because of their beliefs that they hear God in jelly sandwiches (but then those living in France have grown used to this (and remember that the French are progressive for their promotion of artistic expression yet killing religious expression))
  
  
• you’d also imply that the myriad of artistic types have actually NOT enriched the world but rather added to global demise by placing an absurd demand on resources in a non-profitable manner when we all know that artists, as they often tell us, only enrich human cultural history



• this would prevent pro-choice advocates from preaching that nature is evil for making us do things that increase the quantity of humans on the earth when we should be to circumvent nature (hm, but this would seem to unfortunately imply that nature makes mistakes, which, for all the gays tells us, nature made them that way (a mistake?)(i wonder if pro-choice advocates and gays are aware that they contradict each other?)

i could go on, but it seems that the only way to prevent ideological inconsistency is to drown out all dialogue, but then isn’t that a mark of totalitarianism?

maybe humans are their own problems. maybe people should consider that every action has a consequence and that even the cognitive ecosystem has become polluted by evils as well.

Ah, but that would imply that some ideas are bad. The ACLU would demand that i compensate them for that.