Tag Archives: selfishness

There is no greater love than NOT reproducing

Pope Francis waves as he arrives for a special consistory with cardinals and bishops, in the Synod hall at the Vatican, Friday, Feb. 13, 2015. Pope Francis met with cardinals and bishops who will take part in the upcoming Feb. 14, 2015 consistory during which he will elevate 20 new cardinals. Francis will formally elevate the 20 new cardinals at a ceremony in St. Peter's Basilica in the second such consistory of his pontificate. Like the first, Francis looked to the "peripheries" for new cardinals, giving countries that have never before had one — Tonga, Myanmar and Cape Verde — representation at the highest level of the Catholic Church. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Associated Press photo

Pope Smiley Face (pictured above at the Vatican yesterday) recently pontificated that “The choice to not have children is selfish.” Of course, Pope Smiley Face himself has never reproduced (that we know of, anyway).

Pope Smiley Face is all over the map.

First, he proclaims to heterosexuals that they don’t have to breed “like rabbits.”

Now, he says that to not have children is “selfish.”

What we need from Il Papa now, I suppose, is the Goldilocksian number of exactly how many children one “should” have. You know, that magic middle between being “selfish” and breeding like a rabbit.

In my book, most if not practically all instances of having a child are incredibly selfish acts.

This is quite a taboo thing to say in a heterosexist world, but I look to science, to truth and to reality, not to “scripture” written by ignorant men eons ago.

You see a little bundle of joy; I see yet another carbon footprint.

Fact is, most heterosexuals who have children (I’m being charitable and politically correct here by not referring to reproducing heterosexuals as “breeders,” by the way) do so mindlessly — they’re blindly obediently following the script that society has handed to them (be born, reproduce, die, repeat) and have no eye toward the larger picture at all.

That’s at best.

At worst, heterosexuals have entirely egotistical reasons for having children: they care what others think and say, and so they want to fit in by having children; they want to live through their children, who are only little extensions of their own outsized egos; they want someone to take care of them in their old age (which is, of course, a crapshoot anyway, isn’t it?).

More children means more mouths to feed, more schools and hospitals and roads to have to build, more food and drinking water to have to produce, more poverty, more disease, more starvation, more misery, more carbon emissions, more pollution, more land swallowed up for human use, more species that go extinct because of humankind — all in all, a worsened quality of life for everyone.

Births today significantly outstrip deaths today, and the planet isn’t going to expand magically to accommodate all of these new human beings. The results are quite predictable. I think of it as putting more and more fish into an aquarium or more and more rats into a cage. Again: The results are quite predictable.

When the ignoramuses of ages ago wrote that “God” commanded that we should be “fruitful and multiply,” there were far, far, far, far, far, far, far, fewer people on the planet than there are today. There still was plenty of room ages ago to be fruitful and to multiply.

Now, however, at more than 7 billion human beings on the planet (and counting), not only is the species Homo sapiens nowhere near being on the endangered species list, but, ironically, the long-term survival of Homo sapiens is endangered if human reproduction doesn’t slow down.

The most loving thing that one could do for the world is not to have any children, yet the backasswards Catholick Church — and others, of course — insist that to not have children is “selfish” (or, at least, that to have children actually is virtuous).

Of course, the Catholick Church, as well as humankind in general, apparently, always has loved misery, and misery loves company, and thus, overpopulation…

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ding, dong, the Hummer is dead!

FILE - In this June 4, 2005 file photo, Hummer limousine chauffeur ...

Associated Press file photo

A Hummer limousine. (Either one is bad enough, a Hummer or a limousine, but some major asshole had to combine the two.) Hummer limousines were common in ancient Rome right before it fell.

General Motors no longer will produce the Hummer, for which it hasn’t been able to find a buyer, The Associated Press reports today. The AP notes:

The beefy, military-inspired SUV began as a macho icon for enthusiasts like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who held photo ops in Hummers in his early days as governor.

For others it was a symbol of excess, environmental ruin and tackiness — a view that seemed to grow in direct proportion to gas prices and economic distress.

And now the brand is likely no more. General Motors Co. said [yesterday] its bid to sell Hummer to a Chinese heavy equipment manufacturer had collapsed. Government regulators in Beijing failed to approve the sale and GM said it would have no choice but to let the brand die, 18 years after its first and most enormous model started lumbering off the assembly line.

“Finally,” said Ann Mesnikoff, director of the green transportation campaign at the Sierra Club in Washington. “The Hummer was the epitome of gas guzzling.”

Schwarzenegger, who was instrumental in popularizing the vehicle, had a much different reaction two decades ago when he first saw the Hummer’s direct military ancestor. Then a body builder turned movie star, he was on his way to the set of “Kindergarten Cop” in Oregon when an Army convoy packed with Humvees thundered past.

“I put the brakes on,” Schwarzenegger said at the 1992 ceremony that AM General held to start production of civilian Hummers. “Someone smashed into the back of me, but I just stared. ‘Oh my God, there is the vehicle,’ I said. And from then on, I was possessed.”

Hummer’s earliest predecessor was the jeep, the boxy multipurpose vehicle built in large numbers for the Army in World War II. The jeep evolved into the Humvee, which saw heavy action — and entered Americans’ consciousness — during the Gulf War.

In the late 1990s, GM bought Hummer from AM General and began selling a smaller but still outsized model, the H2. Sales boomed after its 2005 introduction of an even smaller model, the H3, that was roughly equivalent in size to other automakers’ full-size SUVs.

Hummer’s image began to change as gas prices began creeping higher, the economy started to crack and the U.S. entered the most difficult period of the Iraq war. Sales, which peaked at 71,524 in 2006, plunged to just more than 9,000 vehicles in 2009. In January, GM sold just 265 Hummers in the U.S.

Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University, said that just as the Hummer had cemented an image of military might combined with off-road brawn, changes in public sentiment turned SUVs “into tantamount to the creation of the devil himself.” …

In time, even Schwarzenegger became critical of Hummer’s gas-guzzling ways. Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said three of the California governor’s four Hummers have been converted to alternative fuels: One runs on hydrogen, one on biodiesel, one on vegetable oil….

Now, the only hope for Hummer’s survival is for a last-minute investor to snap up the brand….

If memory serves, The Hummer Plague started after Sept. 11, 2001, in the national climate of fear, hysteria and jingoism. It also was a climate of selfishness stoked by the unelected Bush regime, which advised us, in the wake of 9/11, to spend more money and to consume even more.

Americans are sheeple, and they followed the “leader.” Thus, the incredibly irresponsible Hummer.

I mean, we identified back in the 1970s that we all needed to be driving smaller vehicles, and then, three decades later, the Hummer. 

I remember all of the post-9/11 Hummers, which were popular before the Vietraq War went sour, if memory serves, with their “Support Our Stormtroopers” — er, “Support Our Troops” — magnets on them. (Support our troops by consuming more oil, keeping them in the Middle East permanently! Makes perfect sense to me!)

Whenever I have seen a Hummer — and you don’t see them as often as you used to, thank Goddess — I have thought that if the driver wants to play war, then why can’t I play war, too, and maybe fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the driver, who believes that it is his or her prerogative to help to destroy the planet (and who, ironically, only perpetuates the “war on terror” by unnecessarily, selfishly increasing the demand for Middle Eastern oil)?  

Seriously — if I see you driving a Hummer, I already know that I hate you.

It’s long been my observation that people drive like they live their lives: utterly stupidly and selfishly, or with some degree of regard for others and with some sense that we’re all in this together, that if all of us act as though we’re the only ones who matter, then we’re all fucked.

Maybe the death of the Hummer indicates more than that Americans can’t afford the gasoline. Maybe it also indicates that the nation is regaining its soul. Maybe.

One hopes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized