"The police would start to identify the most influential Global Warming deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice." "According to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death."
It's almost 2013 and that apocalyptic future seems to be getting closer and closer. Sure we have no flying cars, but we do have a creepy dystopian dictatorship sneaking up on us. Except it isn't sneaking up anymore, it's jack-booting its way around the halls.
Richard Parncutt is an Austrian professor of Music, which makes him an expert on global warming, who originally hails from Australia, but in true progressive style is ashamed of Australia. According to Dick, he is waiting for reconciliation with the aborigines to really happen "so that I can be proud of where I come from."
Parncutt also hates Israel and Mormons, and wants a global wealth tax. And even though he is opposed to the death penalty in the case of mass murderers, he's willing to consider an exception for people he really disagrees with.
In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon...
GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.
Well it is for the greater good. The only question is should we turn their bodies into fertilizer for mother earth after we burn them in a giant wooden man to help end global warming and improve crop yields?
Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”.
Fortunately you don't need to understand math to advocate killing people in the name of science.
Consider for the purpose of argument, let's give Parncutt the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there is only a 1 percent chance that his views will lead to the murder of 1 trillion people. That still means, based on his math, that there is a 100 percent chance that Parncutt's views will lead to the murder of 10 billion people.
According to Parncutt's own numbers there is a 100 percent chance that his games with "Freedom of Speech" will lead to the murder of 10 billion people.
At this point, Parncutt begins to get even crazier, if such a thing were possible.
Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.
From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people.
Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.
Well that's good. Most plans to kill people should be grounded in something morally serious... like comic books.
Killing someone to prevent one murder is immoral. Killing someone to prevent one million murders is moral. The number is what makes something moral or immoral.
Assuming that Parncutt is operating on some sort of consistent logic (far-fetched as that notion may be) then he would oppose having the police shoot a man to save the life of one woman. Only if he were threatening the lives of one million women.
This is your brain. This is your brain on progressivism.
That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms.
This is what I love about progressives. They're such moral people that they are opposed to the death penalty, but will begin drawing up lists of who should be killed at the drop of a hat.
This differentiates them from most people who support the death penalty for murderers, but don't aspire to be murderers themselves and do not have lists of people they think should be killed. Particularly not people whose only crime is having different beliefs than them.
But this is why we should let progressives run our societies. It worked in Russia. It worked in China. It worked in Cambodia. It worked in Cuba.
How can it not work out here? What's the worst that could happen? A few million dead at the hands of cretins who think that the death penalty is immoral unless they get to draw up the lists of who should be killed.
We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death.
And any Catholics who resist. You're going to eventually have to kill them too. And their continued opposition to birth control as part of a dissenting movement will maintain the Catholic Church and lead to the death of millions in Africa. So you're going to have to kill them too. Perhaps in some sort of streamlined and efficient way with minimal carbon footprints.
Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.
And when enough thinking gets done, horrible things become acceptable. And then politicians and lawyers are found who will carry them out.
Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.
And then let's process their bodies and feed them to the hungry under some innocuous environmentally friendly label. Like Soylent Green.
The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.
If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death.
Naturally they would have to be "qualified" scientists. You couldn't have the rabble deciding important issues like this.
The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed.
Parncutt neglects the positive aspect of torturing GW deniers for their heretical views until they confess and affirm the glory of Global Warming so that all the world may know that the planet is really about to explode in a fireball of melted ice.
You've come a long way baby, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Green Inquisition.
Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint.
Assuming you haven't put him in front of a firing squad yet.
But doesn't every political mass murderer believe that he'll be viewed as a saint generations from now? About the only one who is, is Che.
I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so.
I just want to kill a bunch of people whose views I dislike to make the world a better place for my grandchildren. How does that make me a crazy person?
History. No one learns from it.