Our Liberal friends just do not have their priorities straight. Thinking in purely ecological terms, the best
thing we humans can do is to make war, not love. Let's take a look at the results of the two activities starting
with making love.
For the largest portion of the world, affordable, practical birth control is unavailable. Much of the world also
has either religious or social objections to birth control. Therefore, making love often results in pregnancy and
childbirth. More children mean more resources used. It is the left that complains that the planet is too crowded.
The environmentalists say, among other things, that six billion or more people are beyond Earth's carrying
capacity. So, making love will just take us further beyond carrying capacity for Earth.
Since it seems to be desirable to have fewer people on Earth, making war might be a better answer than making love.
After all, people get killed in wars. The population tends to decline, at least until after the war when the
soldiers come home and start making love. So, not only war, but continuous war would seem to be the answer to the
population problems.
Now, some naysayers might mention that war can cause ecological problems. Bomb fragments, depleted uranium,
chemical weapons in the water, nuclear fallout, oil spills from sunken ships, oil field fires; there are many
examples of pollution caused by war. Why worry about short-term containable problems? Look at the long-term
effects. The pollution may kill people in the short-term, but nature takes care of most of it fairly quickly. The
Kuwaiti oil field fires after the "Mother of all Battles" were predicted to be the biggest ecological disaster
ever. Strangely enough, within a few years, everything was back to normal. We do want to kill people, don't we?
Does it matter if a temporary ecological disaster does it, or if a bullet does it? Besides, the messiest, most
ecologically destructive wars tend to be wars against equals. We can plan around that. Since the high population
densities tend to be in what we used to call the Third World, and these countries are likely to have the weakest
militaries, they are where to strike first.
The only problem with this idea is journalists. Given the circumstances and goals we have been discussing, we will
want to encourage massacres. For some reason, most journalists take affront to massacres, even the ones that
never happened. Something will have to be done to curb the journalists overzealous reporting. My own suggestion
is that all journalists, no matter age or nationality, be immediately drafted and forced to serve ten years in the
military before they would be allowed to report freely. This should also be a condition for matriculating as
journalism majors in colleges and universities. After they have participated in a few good massacres, they won't
want to stir the pot to get themselves indicted for war crimes, now will they? Either that, or they'll be enjoying
their stay at Leavenworth for disobeying orders.
Another thing about a bunch of good wars of extermination and conquest is that they are likely to contribute lots
of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. This should contribute to global warming. Now, I have yet to hear
anything bad about global warming. All of these alarmists whining about its effects are nuts. Everything they say
it will do sounds like an improvement to me. I like warm weather and a good storm. If we lose a few islands and
whole populations of people, isn't that what our Liberal friends consider good? Those folks won't be
indiscriminately reproducing if they have no land to stand on, now will they? The worst effects of global warming
are likely to hit coastal areas. What do we have on our coasts? Mostly large cities populated by these illogical
liberals. Would it really be any great loss to lose the land areas of Los Angeles, New York, or Washington? These
lands have been used and abused for too long. Why not give them a rest under the sea? The survivors might move
inland and be even closer to the normal people of the country. Who knows? Perhaps some sense might rub off on
them.
With a few decades of work and hard wars, we could bring Earth's population down to a few million people, leaving
so much more for the survivors. Give old Mother Earth another few decades to recover her ecology, and we'll all be
able to have forty acres and a mule. Then we can think about making love again.
F. B. Knight is Curmudgeon-in-Residence at the Attila the Hun School of Management. He can be reached for questions at
fbk@attilathehunschool.net.
