Hello. Would it be possible to have a conversation about climate change that does not involve the suggestion that humans be killed en masse, in the manner of diseased animals? Thank you.
“If you truly claim to represent the people of the future, Frank asks — people who have the exact same right to a livable planet that we do — doesn’t that mean you should be willing to kill in their defense? Not as a first choice, not as the only choice — but can you really take it off the table? ‘If your organization represents the people who will be born after us, well, that’s a heavy burden! It’s a real responsibility! You have to think like them! You have to do what they would do if they were here,’ Frank argues. ‘I don’t think they would countenance murder,’ retorts Mary, to which Frank replies, ‘Of course they would!’
The Ministry for the Future is thus a novel about bureaucracy, but it’s also about the possibility of a wide diversity of tactics in the name of a livable future that include fighting both inside and outside the system. Characters in the novel contemplate targeted assassination of politicians and CEOs, industrial sabotage of coal plants, intentionally bringing down airliners in the name of destroying commercial air travel, bioterrorism against industrial slaughterhouses — and they do more than contemplate them. How does it change what’s possible when we stop worrying so much about losing in the right way, and start thinking about winning in the wrong ways?” [1]
To be honest, I'm surprised we're not seeing more acts of eco-terrorism yet. There are only isolated incidents of infrastructure sabotage. [2] I think it will change if (when) we don't meet the 2030 emission targets.
I don't believe that people that use violent rhetoric in political speech (fight, war, kill, hang, etc) really know what any of those things are like. If you knew what it was to take a human life, no matter how self-justified, would you bloviate about it so openly?
>> cull all politicians and dirty industry leaders
> Why not ?
You are joking, right ? Or not thinking about what you are saying. Or not respecting that ugly thing - "history"...
You see, when killing starts it's do not stop. 1) goals are not fully achived; b) killers starts to "clean" their ex-own camrades... Soviet Rossia, French revolution are obvious examples; c) killers starts to live in fear of being killed and create despotic countries - that was what you wanted ? I thinked goal was just "protect environment"...
Now compare what achived Soviets and what that dirty Capitalists - who actually get civilized first ? You know that in 70's in UK main society parasites was unions ? - working class won too much. In the mean time: in CCCP and China and Nord Korea you had terror not "freedom for all!"
That's why you do not do things by killing - it dop not work.
Hello. Would it be possible to have a conversation about climate change that does not involve the suggestion that humans be killed en masse, in the manner of diseased animals? Thank you.