Pentti Linkola voted 18th "greatest Finn of all time"

[tumours for TV stars]

Interesting and surprising to say the least!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suuret_suomalaiset

[Sundown]

Yes, but the fact that Ville Valo is rated 13th gives you probably a better indication of your J.I.Finn.

[indjaseemun]

That's good, but I have some issues with Pentti Linkola. Saying that he would push a button so that millions of people would die is just cruel. Millions of innocent lives would be sacrificed, only to be replaced later and the population growth would not cease, since the human population is in the billions (I don't know if it has reached 7 billion yet). I'm sure some murderous, criminal scum would be eliminated, but so would be passionate, hard working, honest and intelligent people, and innocent children.

Forced sterelization on the other hand, is a completely different thing,

[E]

I would push a button so that millions of people would buy my records and rot away from AIDS.

[Conservationist]

Millions of innocent lives would be sacrificed, only to be replaced later and the population growth would not cease

More intelligent populations breed less, often barely above replacement rates even when healthy. How many Europeans and North Asians are there versus the rest of the world? That's one-fifth of the world, even including their peasants.

The problem is idiots. They breed. They do nothing functional, or constructive, but they think they have an equal right to this earth. Just because they are.

Tell me this: where in nature do you find a definition of "innocent"?

[indjaseemun]

Millions of innocent lives would be sacrificed, only to be replaced later and the population growth would not cease

More intelligent populations breed less, often barely above replacement rates even when healthy. How many Europeans and North Asians are there versus the rest of the world? That's one-fifth of the world, even including their peasants.

The problem is idiots. They breed. They do nothing functional, or constructive, but they think they have an equal right to this earth. Just because they are.

Tell me this: where in nature do you find a definition of "innocent"?

My definition of innocent is a person who does his honest work, tries not to harm other people and the world around him. You know what I mean. Yes it's a common cliche, but it works for me. If I can't label anyone as innocent, then no one is innocent. I mean innocent in a context, in that case, there may be some people who even supported pentti linkola that would die. I mean, why destroy millions of lives we don't even know who they are? Is this a good solution? Indiscriminate killing? How would we know the people killed would be idiots? There's no way. (not that I support the mass killing of idiots - as I said, sterelization is another topic). I'm for a rational improvement and downsizing in population. Not even the chinese had to do mass killings to downsize their population (in recent times, not in mao tse tung's times). For what I know they just limited birth numbers. Eugenics is not the same as genocide. Genocide is a thing I cannot agree with.

From what I know of this site, the above rant by me may be considered "moralist"? Or am I wrong? I know I stressed death a lot on it. However, I cannot escape that tought. I'm all for a more realistical view of things, but not necessairly one this violent.

[istaros]

My definition of innocent is a person who does his honest work, tries not to harm other people and the world around him. You know what I mean.

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/meekness/

Yes it's a common cliche, but it works for me. If I can't label anyone as innocent, then no one is innocent.

I think that was his point - innocence being an invention of our desire to be coddled.

[indjaseemun]

My point is that just because many people are not really "innocent" (innocent in the first place, being that in the context of mass killing, many of the people that die may not deserve it), i doesn't mean it's right to go exterminating everyone. We gotta have more criteria, and compassion. Why not settle for forced sterelization? The lives of the people will only last till they die, and they will not reproduce. Isn't that enough? It's hard enough to get people to agree on forced sterelization, or even birth limits.

[istaros]

Not deserve it? Does anyone deserve anything? Is there a universal arbiter who has an objective view of everything, and decides what is and isn't deserved? Or is there just, the void - and, if so, by continuing the logic: nobody doesn't not-deserve anything, just as much as nobody deserves anything.

[E]

Everything else aside, it looks like you (Marcus) get distracted by Linkola's spicing up his writings. You probably get the big picture and acknowledge the man is right; why split hairs over hypothetical scenarios?

[indjaseemun]

Not deserve it? Does anyone deserve anything? Is there a universal arbiter who has an objective view of everything, and decides what is and isn't deserved? Or is there just, the void - and, if so, by continuing the logic: nobody doesn't not-deserve anything, just as much as nobody deserves anything.

If a man tortures another man with a hammer then kills him for no reason, a group of other men will most certainly agree he did not deserve that. Then they probably would agree the man that tortured the other deserves to be killed. I don't think any universal judgment was used, just the common sense of those men, their feelings, and some logic (is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)That's how it works for me

I think we can come to an agreement, if we bear with each other on this question

Everything else aside, it looks like you get distracted by Linkola's spicing up his writings. You probably get the big picture and acknowledge the man is right; why the need for splitting hairs over hypothetical scenarios?

Well, I agree with the man on some things, just wished to point the part that seems unacceptable to me. I mean, just like someone can say "I admire the islamic life, but not the stoning to death of girls who have sex or the killing of homosexuals"

[scourge]

If a man tortures another man with a hammer then kills him for no reason, a group of other men will most certainly agree he did not deserve that. Then they probably would agree the man that tortured the other deserves to be killed. I don't think any universal judgment was used, just the common sense of those men, their feelings, and some logic (is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)That's how it works for me

You're claiming popularity determines what's right, which per Linkola and the rest of the sane people, is an error.

(is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)

How is good/ok determined? There is never "no reason" by the way.

[indjaseemun]

If a man tortures another man with a hammer then kills him for no reason, a group of other men will most certainly agree he did not deserve that. Then they probably would agree the man that tortured the other deserves to be killed. I don't think any universal judgment was used, just the common sense of those men, their feelings, and some logic (is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)That's how it works for me

You're claiming popularity determines what's right, which per Linkola and the rest of the sane people, is an error.

(is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)

That's not what I wanted to say. Well, I did wanted to appeal to common sense a bit, but the most intelligent people would agree on this hypotetical matter that I presented.

How is good/ok determined? There is never "no reason" by the way.

Well, for no reason I mean for pure psycopathy, fun, or to sell snuff tapes (like those fucking russian bastards that tortured a man with a hammer and other things for a long times then killed him, to sell the video). The OK/Not OK power is in our hands, so it must be determined by ourselves (humans). So, answer a question: Why push a hypotetical button, if such a button existed, to eliminate millions of people, among wich may exist a lot of valuable people, if you can sterelize the people? Why choose the most stupid and violent way? (in my view, it is stupidity to kil like this.  It has always been considered wrong, and no I'm not appealing to popularity and I know many things considered wrong were unecessairly so, but even on hammurabi's code it's like this)

Summarizing, what I'm trying to say is, discovering that morality is relative, and  that most people exagerrate in the morals, does not mean that you have to feel that genocide is a trivial thing,

[Antihuman]

Linkola does not think genocide is trivial; he views it as beneficial to the planet.

Sterilization or birth limits will gradually lessen the population.  However, Linkola's view is that we must do so immediately.  He does not distinguish between good/bad people or idiots/ constructive members of society because he would like to see civilization as we know it wiped out, in order to do the planet a favor.

This hypothetical goes beyond eugenics.

[nothingnowhere]

If a man tortures another man with a hammer then kills him for no reason, a group of other men will most certainly agree he did not deserve that. Then they probably would agree the man that tortured the other deserves to be killed. I don't think any universal judgment was used, just the common sense of those men, their feelings, and some logic (is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)That's how it works for me

You're claiming popularity determines what's right, which per Linkola and the rest of the sane people, is an error.

(is it good/ok to kill another man for no reason?)

That's not what I wanted to say. Well, I did wanted to appeal to common sense a bit, but the most intelligent people would agree on this hypotetical matter that I presented.

How is good/ok determined? There is never "no reason" by the way.

Well, for no reason I mean for pure psycopathy, fun, or to sell snuff tapes (like those fucking russian bastards that tortured a man with a hammer and other things for a long times then killed him, to sell the video). The OK/Not OK power is in our hands, so it must be determined by ourselves (humans). So, answer a question: Why push a hypotetical button, if such a button existed, to eliminate millions of people, among wich may exist a lot of valuable people, if you can sterelize the people? Why choose the most stupid and violent way? (in my view, it is stupidity to kil like this.  It has always been considered wrong, and no I'm not appealing to popularity and I know many things considered wrong were unecessairly so, but even on hammurabi's code it's like this)

Summarizing, what I'm trying to say is, discovering that morality is relative, and  that most people exagerrate in the morals, does not mean that you have to feel that genocide is a trivial thing,

I think you're misunderstanding his reasoning for such a statement. The logic isn't "Hmm, it would be really good if we lowered population. Let's kill everyone." The logic is "Hmm, if we don't stop consuming resources at this rate as soon as possible then we will never have a pleasant, beautiful, or easily-habitable environment ever again if we even survive the destruction. We should do anything within our power to stop this, and the many individuals on the Earth right now, no matter how valuable, are not worth, for instance, the food chain collapsing."