Unlike pagans of old, today's climate activists will kill crop yields

Long ago, elites in various cultures sacrificed fellow citizens, including children, to their presumed gods to improve crop outcomes for the next growing season.  Woke anthropologists might call these the first documented examples of cancel culture.  We know now that those sacrifices had no impact on crops, but that didn't stop the elite.  In the modern West, our elites are still prepared to sacrifice fellow citizens, including children, to propitiate their presumed goddess, Gaia.  Unlike pagans of old, they're not even trying to improve crops, though; quite the opposite is true.  Their attacks on CO2 are likely to leave all of us crop-free and hungry.

Among Western nations, the Biden years have seen an increase in plagues and hunger, so our elites seem to feel that human sacrifices are more necessary than ever.  The Earth, they say, can no longer support its human population so many, if not most, people need to be terminated.  (Perhaps it would be wise to retain a few random plumbers and electricians but only the best chefs, please.)

Most elites believe that the middle class is too expensive and too grasping.  The sacrifice script includes impoverishing the middle-class by any means necessary, including (possibly staged) pandemics and the expensive war on CO2.  Thanks to these attacks on the middle class, the middle class is shrinking, and it, and all Americans, has decreased the number of children it's having.  Over the long haul, this will reduce the population with a minimum of bloodshed.

But here's a central question: what happens to the world when the power-wielding leftists are proven wrong?  In this case, "wrong" means structuring a culture that aggressively opposes nature's laws.  Geologic time takes little account of humans wandering about momentarily on the Earth's surface.  People who are caught violating the laws of nature simply disappear.  No funeral, no eulogy, no begging for a second chance, no calling for Mummy and Daddy to save them.

Of the many things leftists are wrong about, the most consequential is this business of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, including reducing carbon dioxide.  Desertification is the risk.

Wait!  Isn't CO2 plant food?  If CO2 is reduced, plants will starve to death.  Indeed, greenhouses that grow vegetables for the retail market add CO2 to their enclosed environments during the day to increase yields.  And plants translate to life.  Yet our elites are desperately working to deprive plants of this life force.  Remember, if you will, that all the oil in the deserts of Saudi Arabia came from the dense forests or sea beds that covered the area millions of years ago.  Plant-free now, the same region cannot support itself without imports.  And that's what elites want for us.

Image: Cows grazing.  Piqsels.

Given our now well established knowledge about the benefits of CO2, should we conclude that the policy to decrease CO2 levels is part of the leftist plan to reduce human life on the planet?  Maybe not.  Maybe accepting this conspiracy theory is a bit premature because continued desertification would affect the elites as well.

Another possible explanation for wanting to decrease CO2 emissions is that the left is just plain, ordinary stupid.  I currently favor this latter explanation because it is so easy for people to be both stupid and rigid, an absolutely unbeatable combination of self-destructive traits that have kept human sacrifices a part of world history for thousands of years.

In contrast to leftist efforts to reduce CO2, the work of Allan Savory in Zimbabwe in using holistic management to rejuvenate lifeless land by increasing the number of gaseous grazing ruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats) is so successful that it is hard to understand why his insights have not been universally accepted.  Only the rigid stupidity we have already mentioned can explain it.

In a recent YouTube video, I was embarrassed to see Savory beg for a rational fact-based discussion of his approach from the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) on climate change in November of this year (2021).  This aging scholar's results are brilliant but so counterintuitive to the ideas of most other brain-dead environmentalists that I am afraid he will go unheard yet again.

It seems his successes are no measure of success at all!  Success must also be in accord with ideological criteria.  If that is not rigid-stupid, then I do not know what is.

Shouldn't the proper attitude be "Save the trees and ditch the ideology!"?  How does ten thousand years of mile-thick ice up to and including New York City strike you as a consequence of accidental tree slaughter?  That's what happened last time.

In pagan times, we can be certain that the sacrificial humans were not happy with their fates as they were lowered into deep volcanic fissures.  The slo-mo death of today's people as their food sources vanish and the world becomes dry and cold won't be any prettier — and, as before, it will be the failure of elites in thrall to a stupid idea.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com