April 25th 2020
Excerpt from Homo Simulator. The end of the Neolithic world live and direct, before our eyes, still incredulous that we are living in prophesied times that do not conform to what our grandiloquent millenarian epic imagined. An end, in any case, that is the beginning of something more frightening or of a paradise of free humans. That is what we are deciding without daring to know it.
Chang An Avenue in Beijing in 1979 was crowded with bicycles ridden by men and women dressed almost in uniform, who negotiated the few buses that got in their way without much difficulty. China’s capital then had 5,600,000 bicycles and 77,000 automobiles. China’s poverty rate was over 90% and CO2 emissions were over 1.5 metric tons per capita. Just thirty-nine years later, in 2018, that same avenue is collapsed by road traffic and its pedestrians dress in a way that is perfectly comparable to those of any other city in the developed world. The number of cars has increased more than 100-fold to 8,540,000, while the number of bicycles has dropped to 2,000,000. The poverty rate in the country as a whole does not exceed 5% and CO2 emissions exceed 7 metric tons per capita.
If we apply the criteria of conservationist environmentalism, Beijing, and with it all the cities of the world, including those of the developed Western countries, should resemble the image of 1979, with CO2 emission values close to those of China 39 years ago. Of course, in order to comply with the dogma of sustainable economy, clothing consumption should also be limited to an image of sobriety and uniformity close to that of the poorly sustainable Beijing.
But what is sustainable economy?
For the ecological ideology, because that is what it has become, it consists of adjusting consumption to levels that do not endanger the environment. Although we do not know if to achieve this diffuse objective it would be enough with the environmental quality of the Chinese poverty of 40 years ago or it would be necessary to adjust more until reaching, for example, the level of the first Neolithic or, even, that of 15,000 years ago. What we do know is what, in practice, is the model of sustainable economy that is being presented to us:
Poverty managed by communism. Minimum consumption and maximum dirigisme.
The conservationist environmentalism has been possessed by a collectivist ideology that drinks directly from communism. And we must not forget that European neo-feudalism consists of 50% communism and 50% free trade under the tutelage of a cyclopean regulation. Why has the environmental movement been hijacked? Well, because communism, like any ideology, tries to survive by mutating into the accessory in order not to be recognized by the antibodies of the ancestral European model and to be able to spread to the maximum number of people. And this ecological suit is perfect to deceive the Europeans.
Where do the big problems for conservation environmentalism lie? In consumption and individual freedom. We consume too much and, in order to adjust consumption to sustainable limits, we must adopt new habits that imply a loss of individual freedom. Collective transport, herbivorous food, biodegradable products… Of course, no airplanes. And, another thing, food products of proximity and season, because it is not really necessary to leave the region to be ecologically happy. The wet dream of the feudal Middle Ages. But, curiously, nothing is said about human overpopulation. On the contrary, the prophetic message of conservationist ecologism, which only has real predilection in Europe and, somewhat less, in the Europeanized countries of Christian origin, is complemented with new versions of “grow and multiply”, and welcome the excess of birth rate to which they are entitled in the third world, pointing out the low birth rate as the great danger for developed nations, for pensions in need of new workers and for economic development in need of more consumers.
It is overpopulation that makes consumption unsustainable.
All the emphasis is placed on consumption to hide the population bubble. And that shows us who has appropriated the environmentalist approaches and for what purpose: Who is interested in not reducing the population even if it means reducing consumption and living standards? It is clear: the collectivist ideologies and the great shepherds. And so, of the two formulas for ensuring that the environment does not degrade to unbearable limits, population restriction or consumption restriction, the ancestral Europeans will always choose the former and the neolithic shepherds, together with all their herd of Homo ceres, the latter.
Reduce population, not consumption and the quality of life of the population.
To live with a high standard of living (Bern 2019), adjusting the population to bearable densities, or with a low standard of living (Beijing 1979) without reducing the population but increasing it. That is the question.
The reduction of consumption and living standards transforms Humanity into placid herds of herbivores guided by the shepherds of minimum environmental impact. But, if we were to take overpopulation as the main problem, we could implement a global society of minimum impact in which the predator/prey ratio would be kept within sustainable limits without the need to reduce the standard of living of humans.
Conservation environmentalism, aligned with collectivist movements, does not seek to leave the neolithic system or to make the quality of life of humans compatible with the sustainability of the environment. It does not speak of reducing the population but of collectivizing and directing it. It identifies consumption with consumerism in order to emphasize something that hides the real and only problem, overpopulation. Because, if overpopulation does not decrease, there are simply no resources for all of us to live like in the First World. Therefore, we will all live as in the Third World, previously convinced that such poverty is necessary. Always the need leading the flock.
It is a lie. Consumption does not equal consumerism.
The aim is not human happiness but that of the “planet”, which in reality is nothing more than a synonym for “sustainable global farm” which, in turn, is a euphemism for “maximum profitability”: maximum number of animals with minimum costs.
If human happiness and the end of the conversion into Homo ceres were sought, it would be enough to reduce the population to a limit bearable by the global ecosystem. If we were to eliminate overpopulation, the environmental impact would be minimized in relation to a maximum standard of living and freedom for the greatest possible number of humans. That should be the criterion: the predator/prey or human/ecosystem ratio. An ecosystem intervened not to provide the maximum human population no matter in what living conditions but, on the contrary, to provide the best living conditions for the maximum number of people. An interventionist, creationist ecologism, builder of Eden, of optimized ecosystems. To transform the Sahara into an orchard and not simply let Nature build and maintain deserts.
It is not the environmental disaster that is the protagonist of the end of the world, as those infected by collectivist and dirigiste ideologies would have us believe. It is not the planet or humanity that is at stake, but the global farm sustained by the population bubble. The end will not be an ecological question because, before that, the human question will explode in the form of generalized and violent conflicts that will destroy civilization, not the world or humanity. This is what the collectivist ideologies and the great shepherds are trying to avoid: the end of the population bubble and the loss of their livestock business.
They defend the business, their farm, not the planet and certainly not the people.
The disaster will be unleashed before we reach the absolute limit of the planetary ecosystem and will occur not because we have caused a massive extinction of life on Earth, nor because we have deteriorated the conditions for life to the point of requiring a period of hundreds or thousands of years for its recovery. The equivalent of a great climatic crisis that will stop the Neolithic engine will occur in a scenario with a vast majority of Homo ceres with a very low standard of living and quality of life and, therefore, consuming very few resources, while a minority of Homo predator enjoys an extraordinary quality of life. It will be a population limit point not for the planet but for the neolithic technosystem itself, incapable of overcoming its contradictions. A collapse of the technosystem precipitated and aggravated by a real climatic crisis of global cooling or by a simple incident amplified by overpopulation, the enormous technological development and globalization. A simple pandemic, a volcanic eruption, just a year or two of bad harvests… A stupid war.