Manhattan Without Us

Even on a clear, sunny day, the people who keep the subway going have to pump 13 million gallons of water away.  Otherwise the tunnels start to flood.

That is from the July 2007 Scientific American, drawing upon Alan Weisman’s The World Without Us; I have pre-ordered my copy and I am waiting for his secret blog.

Comments

Actually it sounds like the typical environmentalist "I hate human beings" rant.

Comments for this post are closed

Can you give some examples of 'typical environmentalists' who think that?

How about these guys?

http://www.u-turn.net/1-2/peoplepollution.shtml

Comments for this post are closed

How about these guys?

http://www.u-turn.net/1-2/peoplepollution.shtml

Ummm...what?!

The conclusion drawn by the author of this article is:

"...population growth is a sign of God's blessing. Message to 1990's Christians: subdue, multiply and fill the earth as our Lord has commanded."

Of course this message is implicitly directed to his reader base only, as this nutter wants a planet filled with Christians.

I loved this little gem:

"Environmentalists and population-control advocates share a fundamental premise: fewer people would make for a better world. They are both implicitly pro-death."

Brilliant!

Comments for this post are closed

Many? That's a strong, if ambiguous, statment, and is probably incorrect regardless.

Some? Yes - and I agree that these people are wackos.

Comments for this post are closed

Sorry, fustercluck. That article came up at the top of my google search for the anti-human environmentalists and I only read the first bit that quoted the environmentalists calling humans a "cancer". I figured they were a pretty good example of the anti-human enviro crowd but I did not read down to the "God's blessing" bit and I don't know what else the article was about. The article wasn't the point, in other words.

Comments for this post are closed

Matthew

I really don't see that 'this is a logical consequence of what environmentalists believe'.

That's why I am asking for cites of environmentalists who believe that.

Even environmentalists who believe in population control tend to do so because of a concern for the effects of human activity on *future* generations.

I would tend to view environmentalists as people who believe that our discount rate should be quite low, and future generations matter as much as we do. And that we should avoid making permanent choices for them (eg to extinct a species, or develop a wilderness area) that they will not be able to reverse.

Comments for this post are closed

"Can you give some examples of 'typical environmentalists' who think that?"

Consider these, gleened from the Who's Who of Environmentalism:

"Quotes from Prominent Environmentalists" http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2007/07/03/52889.aspx

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed