where do I start with this lad? also reactionary ecofascist

>>8451871
who is he?

>>8451871
His house looks really comfy.

"If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."

>>8452186
>Pentti Linkola
>Linkola blames humans for the continuous degradation of the environment. He promotes rapid population decline[4] in order to combat the problems commonly attributed to overpopulation. He is also strongly in favour of deindustrialization and opposes democracy, which he calls the "Religion of Death,"[5] believing it to be an agent of wasteful capitalism and consumerism. He considers the proponents of economic growth to be ignorant of the destructive effects which free market policies have had over the past two centuries.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

>>8451871
tidy it up a bit and I would love to live there all comfy and well read

>>8452186

Linkola. Finnish deep ecologist who generally thinks that some 80-90% of humanity needs to die for earth to remain an environment sustainable for life. Expressed respect for the nazis capabilities for killing large amounts of people in a short span of time.

He's insane and has suggested biological weapons or nuclear strikes as possible ways to reduce the population. He's probably right about overpopulation, but who's going to wipe out 90% of the human population? Nobody.

File: 1457218919802.jpg (42KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 620x349px

>>8454096

>>8454096
>>8453518
>>8453472


How does this meme of a man justify his own existence?

>>8454146
He made a living fishing and studying birds.

He also wants to kill all cats and nuke all mayor cities. A fucking legend.

The retarded thing is that he is still being anthropocentric. Overpopulation doesn't actually hurt the environment, it hurts our ability to live in it. Overpopulation will eventually self-correct itself when global warming kills large percentages of the population and the environment is going to cleanse it self of the minor amount of pollution (in the grand scheme of things) that humans managed to achieve.

>>8454146
see
>>8453468

>>8454829
Dumbass argument

>>8454829
overpopulation and raping and pillaging the nature doesn't hurt the enviroment?

File: retard.jpg (4KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 318x159px

>>8454829

>>8453518
>Expressed respect for the nazis capabilities for killing large amounts of people in a short span of time.

I don't know why I laughed.

>>8454889
>because holocaust is a big joke

>>8454883
How does one rape nature? Should I slip her a pill first or do I do it old school like, in a back alley with a couple of my buddies holding her still? It's been a while.

>>8454910
your funny

>>8453518
Also admires the Red Khmer, considers their actions completely reasonable and would impose similar rule on the whole of earth

t.other

>>8451871
All depends, can you read finnish?

>>8454955
This, since he has only one book translated to english

http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism_writings/

>>8454887
>>8454829
He's right. Evolution and the natural world have no agenda. There is no gaia spiritually inhabiting the forests and jungles and reefs. It would be disastrous from a human perspective if we lost them because theyre the world our species grew in and depends on, but for life on earth we would have just been a device to select for species that can survive an industrialized planet. It's an important distinction. This is what Zizek means when he says environmentalism is a new opiate for the masses. I would consider myself a naturalist absolutely, but the ideology of western environmentalism is a spiritual belief system and has no basis in science.

We want to save the jungles and the whales and the lions because we find them beautiful and dont want to be responsible for the deaths of so many other animals. Nature does not have those gripes.

He has extreme ideas, but don't make him some kind of sociopath. He just considers the overall preservance of life more important than the welfare of humans

"As the root of the global economical abyss he names -- as expected -- overpopulation, the "human flood." And at its sharpest his pen has demanded not only the regulation of birth rate but also the violent reduction of already born. From this he has earned the label of eco-fascist.

Now Linkola may take his words back a little. "Those are speculations, material for discussion."

Yes, you may read Linkola in many ways. Token philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright has characterized him as the "clearest and deepest truth seer, at least in this country." On the other hand a month ago Pekka-Eric Auvinen who shot himself and eight other people in Jokela named him as his teacher.

The master himself isn't enthusiastic of Auvinen's deed. "Shocking hatred," he reacts. "No love at all, at any direction.""

>>8454965
>>8454955
I remember an article where a finnish reporter was Ted Kadczsynski's pen pal and Ted asked if any of Linkolas work was translated to english. Since it wasn't, he never got to read to my knowledge

I love this clip, Linkola just BTFO of the economically liberal green movement in Finland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOP9K36HOmg

"An illusionless analysis of the situation might show us, that the factual main goals of the green movement are dawdling get-togethers, endless cheeky meetings and witty writing in the Suomi-magazine.
A "green" has to have first and foremost a fun, pleasant, "swell" time.
A demonstration is participated in if the length of the route is reasonable and the weather is sunny. The speech is listened at the square if it has playfulness and humour.
And then they go to the afterparty and take out the red wine bottles."

>>8455133
Kek, spot on desu.

>>8455133
dude looks like tom waits

>>8454829
>the harmony of nature
kys

>>8454883
No, dummy. They hurt some of the species, including ours. The environment can't be 'hurt'.

File: Linkolan_ajamana.jpg (176KB, 1233x2358px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1233x2358px

>Linkola mentioned in /lit/
wow what

Anyway, if you know Finnish, this is a pretty neat, short work about his thinking, plus one of his essays. It offers differing perspectives on his thinking, ranging from "he is a fascist luddite" to very sympathetic readings.
I recommend it. You can get the e-book for 2 euros if you use a certain coupon code on the web page of the publisher.

>>8454867
>>8454146
Well, he can be read as a literal fascist madman or simply as a man who cares very deeply about nature and every living thing; thus, he can be very angry. It is always nice to have someone criticizing the liberals, anyway.

>>8457054
Libgen has an epub of his 'Can Life Prevail?'

I've read it and I thought he doesn't really justify his thoughts - 'we need sustainable agriculture and solar power but no mining, there's so many people that we can't keep on growing like this etc', which by itself is all reasonable, but he doesn't offer anything new, and no plans at all - how are you going to build solar cells without mining? In some of these essays he essentially wants to go back to preindustrial times but with some of the amenities of industrial times, without (technical) explaining how you can keep those amenities without industry...

>>8454146
>meme of a man
I personally justify it by him having more intelligence in his pinky toe than your entire family has combined.

>>8457062
He rarely gets the practical level right from what I've seen. I've never tried to make much sense of his "how"s.

He is all about a choice in values, so yes, he lacks good arguments for many of his positions: they may be about values that ought to be felt and experienced.
I tend to view him as a sort of rhetorician.

The main part of his practical "program" can be said to be a tyranny of some sort of intellectual elite that can save humans and in particular, the rest of nature. The elite should decide. The elite should, in their rule, prioritize the preserving of a world as diverse (etc) as possible - this includes humans, but doesn't prioritize them over other animals, at least not overly. But he never pretends to be all about non-human animals; he does idealize a simplified, less modern, less busy life, he wants a world like that in part because he views it as the best option for us. Or the only option, maybe, if he really believes that life can only be preserved this way.
Things get a bit easier with the tyranny, in theory. The elite can simply arrange and regulate things in such a manner than those certain modern perks can still exist, but without real industrialization. But I wouldn't bother with that part, honestly.

He is very anthropocentric in a way; it is pretty clear that one of the reasons for him wanting a nature of that kind is that he wants humans to be able to enjoy it. He personally likes nature a lot.
He has written very beautifully about how he views other animals (and their experiences), in particular birds, enjoying their lives and so on; this kind of loving stuff might be his best "argument", the moment where he justifies it all (at least to himself). The even better part is how he, indeed, does not disqualify humans from this. A smaller, more noble humanity could participate in his ideal nature.

>>8457154
>The elite should decide.

That turns out well everytime. His society would turn into wars. The knowledge of more advanced technology will still exist, people will get their hands on it and take over. He's a utopian in the vain of Marx, Roussou, et al.

>>8457399

Forgot to add, he's a negative utopian. His utopia is in the past, not the future.

>>8457399
>>8457403
Well, there exists one scenario where I imagine it might work out in:

Some sort of eco-catastrophe. Causes enough damage, (more or less) kills modern civilization.

But yeah otherwise no way. Which is why he is a very negative guy, he can't seem to see a realistic way out of the problems he sees. And lets be honest: its not like we right now have a solution for overpopulation, oil, global warming and so on.