Planetary Euthanasia?

On the one hand, we are told that we have to conserve. But any form of conservation that allows the continuation of the corporate status quo merely prolongs the inevitable. We can, perhaps, slow environmental degradation, but degradation will continue nonetheless because our system requires it—our system is founded upon unidirectional consumption.

We are told that recycling is important, and certain rather benign recycling activities are quickly becoming behavioral norms. But recycling doesn’t address the problem of resource consumption. Recycling is a red herring meant to push responsibility away from corporate polluters. Recycling doesn’t solve any of our problems any more than the proliferation of fuel-efficient gas-powered vehicles changes the fact that we have finite oil reserves.

The choice of conservation over the status quo does not alter the fate of the world, it only alters the timeline; it pushes the problem off on the next generation. An argument could be made for taking just the opposite tact. Perhaps we should focus instead on using up natural resources as quickly as possible. Rather than prolong the pain, we should consider slitting the planet’s throat in a single humane stroke.

The problem is Western civilization, period. And the only cure that stands any chance of success is the complete elimination of Western culture, starting with the immediate evisceration of our corporate consumer system.