Less Is More

My new script will have to wait because yesterday I forgot to discuss perhaps the most significant topic covered by Alex Jones's Endgame: depopulation. While I disagree with Jones on depopulation, I commend him for casting a critical eye on it and I think that some of his concerns about it are valid. Let me tell you why I would support a policy of depopulation. Above all, I trust the findings of scientists. Unlike performers, scientists do not get into science for the glamor and the chicks. The only motive for them to pursue a scientific career is their passion for knowledge, which ensures integrity in their reports of their findings. In a way, scientists can predict the future. The scientists who worked on the first atomic bombs, for instance, knew that the bombs would detonate based strictly on theory. This cut down on the need for more than one test of the device. In the same foolproof way, scientists can use mathematics and experiments to predict the disaster that might be caused by overpopulation. They have apparently done this by establishing a 'carbon footprint' for each human being and calculating its collective impact on our planet. If we want our children and grandchildren to be happy, we should avoid bringing them into a world ruined by overpopulation. It looks to me like Jones got it backwards by citing the example of China as a 'model country' for depopulation. China has managed to reverse its population growth through the implementation of strict - and sometimes harsh - public policies. From what I could gather from his reports, life is cheap in an overpopulated country. While Jones uses the example of China to bash depopulation, I see depopulation as the measure that would spare human life from becoming so cheap in other parts of the world. War has been a chief means by which population growth has been controlled down through the millennia. Now that war carries the threat of global annihilation, we must pursue other ways to control population growth. As far as I can tell, the methods being suggested by governments are peaceful: limiting the size of families, reducing the carbon footprint, etc, etc. It would probably only take a generation or two to lower the total world population to a number that does not spell doom for the future of humanity. This is infinitely preferable to the horrors of war. Where Jones and I may agree is on the unfitness of human authority to administrate depopulation. Who decides who gets to live and who gets to die? Can anyone be trusted with such Godlike authority? If it were up to me, I'd rid the world of every last prick who ripped me off on the internet in the last twenty years. Then I'd go after their prick friends and asshole fans who either knew or know about the crime. That alone would probably cut the world population in half. Instead, I hear talk about doing away with other races or with the disabled. (Did you know that FDR was disabled? He was paralyzed from the waist down. Probably the best U.S. president in the last hundred years. He had to hide his disability from the public to stay in politics.) As a person officially classified as disabled, I'd submit to a gas chamber execution as long as I could take every last crooked star and bad broadcaster along with me. We'd at least break even with the outcome.
Arguments Copyright Issues Comedy Sketches Cartoons Lyrics Poems
More Statements Scripts Songs
© 2015. Statements by David Skerkowski. All rights reserved.