Rush calls them EcoNazis.

The difference between the Marxist collectivists and the viros is that Marxists at least in the beginning claimed to be for the "people" in their forced sacrifices. They reified the abstraction of a collection of people resulting in the sacrifice of the only real people there are -- the individual -- in the name of the collective, but at least had some semblance of connection to humanity in their warped way. The viros don't.

But the viros didn't need modern tyrants to tell them they wanted absolute power. The modern viro movement rose politically out of the New Left of the 1960s. Before they changed their name to "Environmentalist movement" in the early 1970s they called themselves the "Ecology movement".

The American public didn't know what "ecology" meant or why they should identify with it. But the viro leaders knew the intellectual tradition they came from. The ecology movement was founded in 1860s Germany by Ernst Haeckel, an Hegelian biologist who coined the term "ecology". He wanted individuals and our values to be subservient to "ecosystems". The ecologists lived in compulsive fear that man was destroying the earth, with a primary hand-wringer being loss of the soil to erosion.

The political expression was to be rule by "scientists" whose "expert" permission was required for all individual action -- just as today the viros demand that everything be regulated in advance with permission required from permanent bureaucracies, with Nature as the standard superseding individual values and freedom.

That was the modern viros' source for their disgusting misanthropic evil proclaiming humans to be "arrogant" for daring to put our own values above raw nature, and their immoral imperative that we strive to "leave no footprint" on the earth -- they reject man as the source of moral value and reject the moral necessity that man reshape his environment to further his own life: Animals can routinely brutally savage each other as their natural state, but man's nature requiring using his mind to alter the environment in order to live is to be rejected as "outside nature" and "arrogant".

Hegel's Absolute became the Ecosystem and his Organic Theory of the State became Environmentalism. The 19th and early 20th century back-to-the land German Green movement was a prominent contributor to the fascist takeover and rise of Hitler. They didn't need 21st century "globalist" tyrants to tell them to seize absolute power.

Collective population control can be brutally simple. Find the gene or part of the brain that resists sacrificing for the collective, then remove that part. In a few generations, Utopia!
/s

Of course, there would be exemptions for this procedure.

And that's precisely what the entire thing is about: elitism. What they do not understand is that one of the reasons we have such choice and consumer options in this world is because of the plethora of people who can then offer them. With reduced human population goes reduced choice in alternatives. Of course, that is precisely what an elitist wants. It is the "their way or the highway" mentality.

There's little intellectual difference between a Democrat and an animal, except that the animal is going to be more genuine and loyal.

Calling man's domination of nature "arrogance" and "tremendous damage" through the imagery of a pet dog and appeals to unnecessary cruelty is a vicious package deal denouncing humanity as such. It is a non-answer to Craig Biddle's TOS article.

Every living creature follows its own nature to live. Animals routinely savage each other as part of their nature, and no one calls them "arrogant". They do not have rights, which is moral concept for rational beings. Rights do not come from emotions. Man's domination of nature, following his nature to use his rational mind to alter his environment in order to live is not a metaphysical "arrogance".

Denouncing mankind as such as morally inferior to wild animals is disgusting misanthropic nihilism. No other species can be "wise" at all, let alone the wisest on the planet. None of us live to be "beneficial" to nature, which is the lowest -- viro -- form of altruism.

Ayn Rand gave her characteristically principled, philosophically moral answer to the misanthropic nature-worshipers in her 1971 "The Anti-lndustrial Revolution", reprinted in the anthology Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

Human[oids], Exceller,.. not conscious humans...Big difference.

Actually, it makes complete sense (that you interpret it that way). I can't even disagree.

It's not a joke. They are minsanthropic nihilists who worship nature as an intrinsic value held as superior to human values and choices. They don't have to literally advocate human extinction for their perverted ethics to be destructive.

No pets here. I like animals, and have had pets in the past, but not in the past 30 years. The idea that all pets must live indoors is not going to happen with my household, plus we like to travel in places where pets are not allowed. So for the betterment of humans AND pets, no pets for us.

I get a big laugh out of all the "lost dog/lost cat" entreaties I see on various neighborhood networks. "Oh, my dog is just like my child; but he got out of the fence and I must have him back," My answer to that is always the same - Oh really? You allow your children out to run on the streets and don't secure the doors and fences around your home?

Maybe a call to CPS is in order, then.

Not having pets changes nothing.

It was only a reference for first hand information/knowledge.

The fact remains that some humanoids (by OUC) behave like beasts when it comes to animals. It only proves their own degradation.

"the environmentalist from any group have not advocated to control population"
I think they have. It's the Malthusian question. So far we've escaped the Malthusian trap by increasing production. We're causing global warming and mass-extinction event, but maybe technology will deal with the effects of those things. I actually suspect they will. The more of us there are, though, the harder it is for us not to make a mess for one another. It seems to me there need to be vehicles that make people pay for their own mess, and hopefully market forces would take care of it. Right now we tax work and give tax breaks for kids.

If people could be freer and more educated, that tends to cut the birth rate. How to make people freer, of course, is the whole thing. Humans freely pursuing happiness is the only reason the environment matters.

What government (or other organization) do you propose defines who lives and who dies?

What science is the need for an action of population control based on?

Who has the right to enforce it?

Think about the kind of power this suggests giving to governments, or some other collective group. It would an utter loss of all freedom to allow anyone to have this kind of power.

the solution is not in controls, its in capitalism. As a society gets free markets they become more affluent. As they become more affluent the free market expands creating even greater wealth.

As a society becomes more wealthy they have resources to put towards things like pollution, energy use, deforestation and they will because they have the resources and want to have a forest area to go camp in, hike in....

All of these things as well as self governing population occur when free markets are allowed to increase wealth. The rich get richer, so do the poor. Children are no longer assets but expenses and as a result fewer people choose to have children and those that do have fewer of them.

There is a great chapter on this in "enlightenment now" which puts all kinds of data behind it.

Any other method requires tyranny to do it. Some one must have tyrannical power. I am against that. I am for the natural evolution that occurs for the environment when a free market is allowed to be free.

"The problem" is not a failure to "assign responsibilities". In a free society, unlike for conservatives, "responsibilities" are not "assigned". The central political problem now is the failure to acknowledge the rights of the individual, not a lack of "assigning responsibilities". There is no end to the "responsibilities" the government is assigning to provide for its entitlements and taxes. We do not owe society anything for living our own lives in accordance with the right to our freedom.