Can Life Prevail?

by Pentti Linkola

With the train of civilisation hurtling at ever-increasing speed towards self-destruction, the most pressing question facing humanity in the 21st century is that of the preservation of life itself. Can Life Prevail?, the latest book by Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola, provides a radical yet firmly grounded perspective on the ecological problems threatening both the biosphere and human culture. With essays covering topics as diverse as animal rights, extinction, deforestation, terrorism and overpopulation, Can Life Prevail? for the first time makes the lucid, challenging writing of Linkola available to an English-speaking public."By decimating its woodlands, Finland has created the grounds for prosperity. We can now thank prosperity for bringing us – among other things – two million cars, millions of glaring, grey-black electronic entertainment boxes, and many unnecessary buildings to cover the green earth. Wealth and surplus money have led to financial gambling and rampant social injustice, whereby ‘the common people’ end up contributing to the construction of golf courses, classy hotels, and holiday resorts, while fattening Swiss bank accounts. Besides, the people of wealthy countries are the most frustrated, unemployed, unhappy, suicidal, sedentary, worthless and aimless people in history. What a miserable exchange." - Pentti LinkolaKaarlo Pentti Linkola was born in Helsinki in 1932. His father was the rector of Helsinki University and his grandfather had worked as chancellor of that same university. Pentti Linkola, however, chose a very different path. Having spent most of his life working as a professional fisherman, he now continues to lead a materially simple existence in the countryside. A renowned figure in Finland, since the 1960s Linkola has published numerous books on environmentalism. Today, he is among the foremost exponents of the philosophy of deep ecology.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Ecology, Environment, Nature, Essays

207 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2004

About the author

Kaarlo Pentti Linkola (7 December 1932 – 5 April 2020) was a Finnish radical deep ecologist, ornithologist, polemicist, naturalist, writer, and fisherman. He wrote widely about his ideas and in Finland was a prominent thinker. He lived a simple and austere life.

Linkola blamed humans for the continuous degradation of the environment. He promoted rapid population decline to combat the problems commonly attributed to overpopulation and was quoted as saying about a future world war, "If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."

Linkola's writings describe in emotional detail the environmental degradation he witnessed. He dedicated his 1979 Toisinajattelijan päiväkirjasta (From the Diary of a Dissident) to German far-left militants Andreas Baader and Ulrike Marie Meinhof, stating that "they are the signposts, not Jesus of Nazareth or Albert Schweitzer". He supported acts of terrorism such as the 2004 Madrid train bombings as he viewed them as disruptions to a society that is responsible for the degradation of the Earth. When asked in 2007 why he had not himself become a terrorist, Linkola said that he lacked the ability and bravery.

Reviews

[Bryce · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is like 90% talking about Finnish birds, 10% advocating genocide.

[Brett Stevens]

A collection of Linkola essays in English, this book provides a practical and poetic leap into the form of deep ecology known as ecofascism: to save nature, we must change how we live, starting with a recognition that "what we want" is never "what we need." Powerful, insightful, and haunting book.

[Aung Kaung · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can Life Prevail? by Pentti Linkola is a kind of book that will profoundly captivate your thoughts and has an internal force that could equip you to question the existing ideologies of the world. Before I go on lauding the author’s outright candor, I have to say, to lend certain honesty to my review, that I have expected a lot more than this after reading a short summary of the book on Wikipedia, which explains Linkola as someone who advocate eugenics, genocide and abortion as possible means to combat overpopulation of humans on the earth. He also approves Stalinist and Nazi massacres as “massive thinning operations”. He also has suggested that the big cities should be attacked by “some trans-national body like the UN”. These lines are something you would certainly avoid to say if you live in the world of liberals.

While reading this collection of essays, I have alarmingly sensed the environmentally and politically conservative ideas of the author. His love for nature is enormous – he made a living as a fisherman from a rowboat and sold his fish to local people from a horse-drawn cart, in his native land, Finland until he reached retirement age, he never uses any type of energy-consumed transportation (he once toured around the Europe with his wife on bikes to watch birds and enjoy the nature), he avoids all kinds of devices and modern technology so on and so forth. Also what the author really advocate is to go back to the pre-industrial life with less population and less material development.

From the first chapter to the last, Linkola is able to point out the facts that I used to overlook when thinking about the environmental issues. Through his experiences both as a fisherman and a person living in Finland, Linkola criticized on the modern-day hygiene phobia, human slavery to machines and modern lifestyle that is harmful to the environment. I cannot agree more on this discourse which goes as “How many believe that human well-being , pleasure and happiness diminish the more we follow this path? And that even if this path were not to lead to ecocatastrophe and extinction, it would still be a gloomy and dreadful one?”

While reading the book, I kept on thinking what kind of new ideas he can offer me. However, as I should have expected, most of the facts are based on his personal observations as a lover of nature and are just Finland-wise. Lack of proper research (except his personal experiences) to back up the major claims he made in his essays, such as distortion of the facts on deforestation by the Department of Forestry Research of Finland and WWF for the financial and industrial interests and the suggestion to stop investing medical technology, research and human labor in saving the lives of infants (and mothers) and instead, channel them towards the care for the elderly citizens who are wiser and more useful to the society.

Because of the aforementioned subjects, do not think the book is just bemoaning on the annihilation of the nature and eco-catastrophe by human race because there certainly are amusing ideas. “The Cat Disaster”, the invasion of cats to the human civilizations as pets actually had adverse effects on the ecology by destroying the native bird species and other species of small animals. Also that of frail men and tough women is not a myth, but an established fact of human life, hence, granting women as the protectors of Life.

Most of us (including the scientists and world leaders) do not seem to be aware that the rampant hunger of global capitalism and industrialization has eaten up the natural resources to intolerable extent. But we are either ignorant or reluctant to point out the main factors driving this. From the dawn of human progress as foragers to nowadays, we only develop towards one way –comfort. All the technology and devices we have ever created help our work to be more efficient and effective while eroding the natural resources like oil and gas, the energy of the Sun kept within millions of years ago. In his essays, Linkola has called for the very minimal use of them and adoption towards more bucolic agriculture lifestyle.

Although he refers to himself as a deep ecologist, it is eco-fascism and radical environmental empiricism that drive his work and his life. With devastatingly provocative remarks as “Human rights = the death sentence of Creation, human rights = the death sentence of mankind”, one will think he is a misanthropist and an outright opponent on the freedom and liberty of the humans. In fact, he is a great admirer of Nature and Life (as the title partly suggests). The analogy of the boat with more people it can carry in the middle of the sea is convincing so much that I become an ardent supporter to decrease the seven billion human population as quick and effective as possible. The hypocritical burden of someone who loves Life is having to choose whether ‘all’ or ‘some’ shall perishes. However, the drastic measures he proposes to reserve the Life on earth, including the political system with Platonic ‘philosopher’ king(s) who will rise to power themselves, subsistence economy, complete abolition of private cars, limited industries and mass localization are reasonable from the ecological perspective, it will becomes ludicrous and useless in terms of freedom and liberty, human rights, and more importantly global or national economy. I felt sad to read the conclusion of the book. I have fully agreed with the author that his utopia is the only sustainable model that can grant our species eternity of Life. But I also know that the chance of his model becoming reality is next to zero in reality.

As the book is more like his collection of thoughts, there are criticisms on veganism, animal rights, foreign policy of the United States and nihilism (yes, I typed nihilism) which will be a little off from the topic but worthy for your cerebration. But for this review, I will leave them out for the sake of space and time and have you think about them and make your own decision as to Can Life Prevail?

[JimDavisFan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This review section is filled with cringy edgelords that won't do anything to solve climate change and subtly (in some cases, not so subtly) want to advocate for genocide.

Hey, Linkola stans, have you ever considered the possibility of maybe, just MAYBE , putting the blame of the climate catastrophe on big companies like Exxon or Chevrolet instead of "overpopulation" (And cat owners)?

Why you always, ALWAYS, continue allowing fossil fuel companies to deflect blame of all the damage done to earth?

Do you really care about the environment, or is "ecology" just a mere excuse to promote your fascist bullshit?

That of course, was merely a rethoric question. We all know the "eco" part from "ecofascist" is nothing more than greenwashing. Fascist scum never really cared for the environment, and its only interest is further their agenda.
Lets examine some of those gems, shall we?

If you accept Linkola's premises, as most environmentalists do

citation needed.

all of Linkola's advice follows logically. Even the most deranged ones: the rationing of births, the mass access to euthanasia and abortion, the pushback against technology to the point of giving up electricity, a major overhaul in every single area of the economy, the politics of extermination as a tool for population control, and the flirtation with nuclear disasters hitting major cities across the globe.

Guys like this, so pretty keen on committing genocide are pretty transparent on their intention.
They are obviously never going to sacrifice themselves.
They want to be ones commiting these atrocities, and they not only want to commit them with total impunity, but also being praised by their crimes.
For "eco"fascists there is no alternative for genocide, because thats always been his endgoal. Enviromentalism is just a facade for them.

Consider that annoying vegan who won't stop pestering you about eating meat. Go full Linkola and point her (most likely her) to one of the chapters in this book, preferably the ones that advocate drowning all house cats and outlawing all international travel that is not done on a bike.

10 bucks this guy is still angry at his vegan ex-girlfriend. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised at all if she chose her cats over him. Cant blame her.

Agree with almost all, except Europeans need to have more children, many more. Everything else, ban cars, restructure schools, a dictatorship , a fortress around Europe , we need to reconnect with nature.

This is one is pretty obvious on its true intentions.
We all know what you mean by "European", dude. And we all know who the fortress you want to build will be keeping out.

This guy is about as pro-life as you can get, as opposed to the perversion of death cultist sentimental universalists.

This book reminded me of Idiocracy, where hypermaterialistic humans in a dysgenic dystopia water their crops with energy drinks. Buzzwords "Human rights & sanctity, democracy" = "but it's got electrolytes"

Ah, an Idiocracy fan. Such an annoying bunch.

When talking about minorities, human rights is a "buzzword". When talking about taking away their human rights, they pick their guns. (And keep in mind, these fellas consider the mere existence of minorities as an affront to their own existence.)

Fascist are all the same everywhere.

"Your body, their choice". For them, The Handmaid's Tale is an utopia.

I am glad that I have read this book. Linkola is one of the most sincere thinkers I know of, and in his private life he does try to live up to his ideals.

Linkola was nothing more than hypocrite and a coward, just like every fascist. When asked why he wasn't a terrorist himself, he claimed that he lacked the "bravery and skill" (I.e.: He didnt want to face any consequence for his repulsive ideals, wanted to kill others and celebrated the death of many other people by natural or man-made disasters, but clearly was afraid of dying himself or suffering harm.)

You know, I find a bit weird that a guy who constantly advocated for genocide, still decided to have two kids.

Clearly he was against the "wrong" (read nonwhite) people reproducing. Like a lot of his fans, judging by the trashy reviews written here.

My advice to any of you ecofascists who believe genocide is the key to save the earth is: Don't be hypocrites, and lead by example.

[Ystradclud · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recounting his life and experiences in the Finnish wilderness, uncle Pentti basically argues that humans should be subservient to the natural world in all conceivable ways. He sees modern humanity as a festering disease rather than as a part of nature (and he's not completely wrong). He hates nothing more than over-consumption and obese people. He cares little for lofty, human-centred notions of "humanitarianism" or "human rights". Yes, it's that kind of book. His solutions are as extreme as his love for nature. Greta's so-called "radical" ideas haven't got shit on what Pentti has in store for us. A good read if you're based and Tedpilled. Also good for into-ing deep ecology. Send this to that cute earthy instagram arthoe you're fiending for. I'm sure she'll appreciate how into saving the trees you really are :)

[Ryan McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Linkola is completely obsessed with the arbitrary national border, but aside from that I agree with pretty much everything he says.

[Kriegslok · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps not a book for lovers of the domestic cat this book is a bit reminiscent of the old bloke ranting Daily Mail / Sun editorials to all and sundry only in this case the editorial line comes to the classic 1980s "Green Anarchist". Translated from the Finnish "Can Life Prevail" is not exactly a work of literary genius but it does not claim to be. Author Pentti Linkola is something of a cult figure in Deep Ecology who has collected some interesting bedfellows and supporters along the way. Partly a rant against modern society and partly a plea for the survival of life does make some very valid and worthwhile points along the way. While many are likely to find some of his statements outrageous and repugnant (for example his positive spin on the attack on the WTC) such views can help illustrate the complete disregard the majority of humanity have for even worse crimes and slaughter which passes for normal, acceptable and a price worth paying to sustain our unsustainable "civilisation". Linkolas most grounded commentary concerns his home environment of his native Finland. Born in the 1930s he has from an early age closely observed, catalogued the natural world. From his personal travels and records he has a very clear picture of the destruction of Finland's flora and fauna, which he ranks as some of the worst in Europe but reflective of a general picture. He makes the important point that managed woodland is not ancient natural woodland and that the picture of Finland as green and pleasant hides a more complex reality. His prognosis for the future is not great "half our population is frantically engaged in 'green' activity, the rest depressingly oblivious"
Unlike many others Linkola is not afraid to tackle the problem of people head on "the worst enemy of life is too much life: an excess of human life" to this degree he laments many of those catalysts to the survival and growth of the human plague bemoaning the human success in going against natures natural checks and balances on species becoming too great a strain on the environment that supports them. In calling for extreme measure to check and reduce the unsustainable proliferation of the human species Linkola emphasises the need for population control and objects to the concept of individual human rights which he believes go against the best interests of the human species. Liberal democracy does not appeal to Linkola who welcomes facets of dictatorship and authoritarianism without really acknowledging their demonstrable failings to bring about any of the positive results he seems to hope they might. Reviewing Finnish society Linkola identifies a malaise that has ripped apart society where mechnaisation has destroyed real work, purpose, culture and self pride. Communitieis, especially rural he says have been wrecked, appealing to happier times of honest manual labour and self made culture and entertainment he advocates a return to the land and to village life. While he no doubt has some valid points, all amply illustrated by example, especially his own trade as a fisherman, those who would join him in a return to the days of old are few. Reading Linkola's book I believe he is truly motivated by his love of all life and his desire to see his precious natural world with all its wonder saved from the ravages of human destruction as much as he desires to save humanity from itself. He proposes a Utopian world where all the trappings of the 21st Century have been consigned to the scrap heap. A world where love of neighbour and mutual aid are the rule and not money and the hording of possessions, where entertainment and culture are once again community led and not corporate commodities. The alternative he says is too horrible to imagine. Pentti Linkola though is, I believe, a voice in the wilderness and one whose words will be written off as a ranting and perhaps dangerous nutter, some would no doubt add him to their list of terrorist suspects or sympathisers. Baring some unimaginable miracle the "too horrible to imagine" future for humanity will soon not need imagination, nor will the mass extinctions of the natural world, its flora and fauna which have driven Linkola to his place as leading Deep Ecologist.

[Greg Paulson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Linkola has definitely motivated me more in thinking about the environment, so it was worth the read but I also have many criticisms.

Firstly, the first three chapters have little relevance to anyone outside Finland. Furthermore, they will only be interesting to someone who has a big interest in the particular birds, animals, and species of plants native to Finland. The single saving grace is that it is well-written and in small, digestible chunks.

Linkola at his best is making broad statements about humanity, over-population, liberalism, the market economy, and democracy. His environmentalism or conservationism is extreme even for extremists. I do agree with him on many things but he often mixes his better ideas with silly ones. Particularly, his call to "eliminate competition" between humans is completely unrealistic and not even desirable in my opinion.

The best thing reading 'Can life Prevail' has done for me is to get me thinking more seriously about environmental issues which so often get sidetracked in almost every arena but particularly in racialist circles (despite having a presence among a few members).

Overall, I would suggest people to read it but to skip the first three chapters.

[… · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected a much more intensely revolutionary work but most of the essays in the first three quarters of the book pertain more to sometimes obscure environmental topics like the predatory destructiveness of cats to the bird population.

it livens up some the last quarter of the book where you get the linkola everyone knows and loves who is would like to push a button and destroy a sizeable portion of the global population lol

the guy isn’t wrong about a lot of things and radicality is always a draw but I would be much more interested in politically focused writings, specifically ones that address the western world as the catalyzing force for ecological catastrophe

[Hrafnkell Úlfur · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lesin fyrir ritgerðarskrif í Siðferðileg álitamál samtímans

Þegar ég var um það bil hálfnaður með lesturinn greip ég sjálfan mig í einhvers konar millistigsástandi skoðannaskipta. Til að útskýra það betur þarf að gefa smá forsögu um samband mitt við Linkola.

Ég, verandi ungur hvítur karlmaður frá norðurlöndunum, fæ af og til hent í mig af höndum algrímans frekar tæpar skoðanir. Þetta er, held ég, frekar algeng lífsreynsla nú til dags, eitthvað sem að kemur reglulega fyrir aðra unga hvíta karlmenn frá norðurlöndunum og öðrum löndum líka. Í flestum tilfellum nær maður að hunsa þetta eða maður veit einfaldlega betur og heldur áfram með daginn sinn, en af og til fellur maður í gildru því að sannfæringarmáttur þessa efnis getur oft verið frekar mikill sérstaklega þegar það er sérsniðinn algrími sem reynir eins og hann getur að finna efni sem mun halda athygli þinni.

Yfirleitt er þetta efni sem notar ýmis mælskulistarbellibrögð til að sannfæra þig um málstað sinn. Þau helstu verandi eftirfarandi:
- Að notast við fyndni til þess að sannfæra þig um málstaðinn, því að ef staðhæfing er fyndin að þá hlýtur hún einnig að vera sönn.
- Nýta sér fagurfræðina sem felst í klippingu myndefnis við taktfasta tónlist til að láta málstaðinn líta út fyrir að vera aðlaðandi.
- Koma með krassandi tilvísun í texta eftir einstakling sem er hliðhollur málstaðnum sem að hristir við lesandanum og vekur hann til umhugsunar.

Það er þessi síðasta aðferð sem að ég féll fyrir í tengslum við Linkola og var tilvísunin eftirfarandi:

"Hvað skal gera þegar að skip með hundrað farþegum sekkur, og það er einungis einn björgunarbátur sem getur tekið 10 manns? Þegar björgunarbáturinn er fullur munu þeir sem hata líf reyna að draga fleiri um borð, sem leiðir til þess að allir drukkna. Þeir sem elska og bera virðingu fyrir lífi munu hins vegar grípa í exina og höggva á þær hendur sem hanga í borðstokkinn."

Vissulega krassandi mynd sem að Linkola málar hér upp, eitthvað sem að hristir við manni, og það er einmitt það sem kom fyrir mig. Ég myndi líta á mig sem umhverfissinna og reyni að samsinna gjörðum mínum því, þó að ég sé vissulega ekki fullkominn. Þannig að þessi tilvísun hafði mikil áhrif á mig og vakti ýmsar spurningar sem ég átti erfitt með að svara: Erum við virkilega kominn á þennan stað þegar það kemur að hnattrænni hlýnun? Er þetta eina lausnin við þeim vanda? Hvert væri mitt hlutverk í þessu öllu saman? Væri ég að drukkna, að draga upp í bátinn, að höggva? Og svo lokaspurningin sem að er líklega helsta ástæðan fyrir því að þetta fékk svona lengi að dvala inn í mér: Er einhvernveginn hægt að hrekja þetta? Og því átti ég erfitt með að svara.

Ég ræddi þetta við vini mína þegar umhverfismál voru að umræðuefni og sá að þau áttu líka erfitt með að takast á við þetta líkt og ég, þó að þetta hafi mögulega ekki angrað þau jafn mikið og það gerði mig. Þetta þróaðist á endanum út í það að ég keypti þessa bók Linkola, þaðan sem þessi tilvísun er, og las hana fyrir ritgerðarskrif í áfanga sem ég var í sem hét Siðferðileg álitamál samtímans.

Það að loksins lesa bókina sem að innihélt þessa tilvísun sem hafði á þessum tímapunkti angrað mig í nokkur ár var áhugaverð lífsreynsla. Bókin byrjar frekar rólega. Fyrsti kaflinn ber heitið "Finnland" og inniheldur ritgerðir um Finnska náttúru, sá næsti heitir "skógar", sá þriðji "dýr", en svo er það sá fjórði sem heitir "heimurinn og við" þar sem Linkola leysir úr læðingu sínar öfgakenndustu hugmyndir.

Linkola vill að orkunotkun mannkyns minnki um helming, að auka verði tengslin á milli manns og náttúru, að allar rannsóknir og tilraunir lækna til að almennt lengja líf fólks verði lagðar niður, að fólksfjölgun verði haldin í skefjum, að fækkað verði í fjölda mannkyns á kerfisbundin máta, og að dauðarefsingin verði tekin aftur upp og með henni fækkað í íbúum fangelsa. Með öðrum orðum vill hann einfaldlega að fasismi verði tekinn aftur upp og kerfisbundin útrýming á stóra hluta mannkyns hefjist sem fyrst.

Bókin er sett upp á þennan máta þar sem hún byrjar rólega, og einungis glittir af og til í öfgakenndar pælingar, áður en að hún lætur allt flakka og þá er lesandinn hvað mest tilbúinn að taka á móti skilaboðum hennar og líklegri til að samþykkja þau, og lesi maður þær gagnrýnir hér sem að lofa bókina sér maður að hún er, því miður, frekar góð í því.

Ég greip sjálfan mig við lesturinn á þessari bók við það að ég var búinn að vera að hrapa ofan í einhverja ógeðslega kanínuholu án þess að taka eftir því og ég sá hve auðveldlega ég átti með það, og hvaða tól voru notuð til þess. Þetta byrjaði einfaldlega bara með einhverju sem ég sá á netinu og ýtti við mér og hefði ég líklega einfaldlega innlimað þessar öfgakenndu hugmyndir í mig ef ég hefði ekki vitað betur.

Ljúkum þessu með því að takast aftur á við spurninguna: "Er hægt að hrekja þetta?" Gagnrýni við afstöðu Linkola felst í því að gagnrýna hann fyrir hve öfgakenndar lausnir hans við vanda hnattrænar hlýnunar eru. Vissulega myndi fólksfækkun hafa einhver jákvæði áhrif fyrir umhverfið. Því þá eru færri einstaklingar til að menga, en þá er hægt að benda á að mannkynið er ekki eina lífveran sem að mengar. Enn fremur, og þetta er lykilspurningin sem þarf að spyrja til þess að hrekja Linkola: „Myndi maður vilja búa í heimi þar sem notast er við kerfisbundna fólksfækkun til að leysa vanda hnattrænar hlýnunar?“

Vonandi myndu flestir, ef ekki allir, svara því neitandi.

[Abdul Alhazred · Rating 3 out of 5]

Complicated book to review as it's a series of essays from different years with varying topic and scope. Linkola's purview is centered around his own existence as a fisherman, his desires tied to propagating his own lifestyle; when faced with opposition from other eco activists, he necessarily chooses what combination of ideals that would impact him the least. In the future eco fascist utopia, Linkola's life wouldn't be changed much, and society would "ideally" choose to do what benefits him.
It's in that myopic view the holes in the worldview also open up as he expounds on the deep ecology vision later in the book, a world without trade, largely without machines, without transport. Yet he's sure to mention salt would have to be an exception since there isn't enough salt readily available in Finland for him to preserve his fish. Thus, again, all exceptions to rules exist to ensure his own comfortable continued existence without any disruptions.

Yet it's also obvious the man has a deeper connection to his surrounding nature than most eco activists ever have. Personal observations of animals, records of nesting birds kept over decades, constantly living in the ongoing ecological change and seeing the impact of industrial impact on nature from his own daily life, rather than in theory or in pictures, has obviously given him more pertinent insights than many eco activists have. His bemoaning of "greens" trying to protect invasive species because they're furry and cute, rather than domestic animals that aren't as photogenic, is one such sign.

The pronouncements of imminent doom make him (and many others) easily dismissed as crackpots or apocalypticists, being as we are comfortably living in the decades beyond in which he confidently, repeatedly, predicts the death of mankind at large. But between bouts of hyperbole and shortsightedness there's also a lot of gems sprinkled in that are worth considering. The radical ecological perspective is also worthy of consideration before dismissing, no matter the personal shortcomings of Linkola himself.

[bonaventure · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pentti Linkola offers some consequentialist perspective on saving humanity from itself. While others talk about reducing emissions, Pentti Linkola talks about sterilization, radical transformation of government and a move back to the country.

[AvianBuddha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pentti Linkola was a Finnish ornithologist, fisherman, and conservationist. Some of his best essays are translated into English in this book. Most of the essays seem to date from the 1990s to the very early 2000s. Linkola focuses on how the technological-industrial order has rapidly depleted the world's biodiversity, specifically in Finland. The market economy and technology have all contributed to the rapid degeneration of the planet, he explains. Linkola says, "I have found nothing good that was ever brought about by progress." Using personal examples from his life in Finland, he criticizes the disastrous consequences of industrialization, such as overpopulation. He considers "the conservation of the Earth's life as a lush and diverse whole... as something incomparably holier than anything man might regard as such". At this rate, "humanity will ultimately consume itself". Linkola wants an ecofascist model of society to "return man to his place in a harmonious bicoenosis". He wants man to become a "sparse and noble species" again.

There is too much to cover in depth, but here are twenty highlights:

1. As a result of overconsumption and exploitative industries in the capitalist market economy, overvaluation and overpopulation of human beings pose the greatest environmental threat. The West should cease sending aid to the Third World and focus on pressing ecological matters.

2. Life on Earth is being impoverished - its diversity and richness are being lost, and extinction is irreversible, a fatal blow to the biosphere. Humans are not the center of life, and their preference for economic growth over species preservation has caused massive extinctions. The balance of nature is constantly shifting, but man-made disruptions are destructive and often irreversible.

3. Democracies are ineffective in dealing with looming ecological catastrophes due to the insipidity of the masses. As a result of cultural values like freedom and individual rights, environmental damage is exacerbated because it "means the freedom to consume, exploit, and tread upon others" and "never clamour for anything other than bread and circuses". A true brilliance among men is rare, and it is only known by a few rare individuals who extend their protection to the entire creation, the entire living layer of the globe, and they should be ruling over others with crystalline logic.

4. Many primeval forests are being overlogged, and the forest industry intentionally manipulates data to give the impression that fewer clearcuts were made. Morever, the network of gravel roads and motorways significantly damage the primeval forests and biodiversity.

5. Intensive agriculture, especially when coupled with overpopulation, causes soil depletion.

6. Agricultural production should be valued above all other crafts, and wasteful food consumption should be significantly reduced.

7. Hysteria over freshness and hygiene led to an abundance of "sanitary" regulations that destroyed local sustainable businesses by increasing their costs. It is common for regulations to serve industry interests under various guises often at the expense of local sustainable businesses and the environment.

8. Energy consumption in industrialized countries is approximately twenty times higher than in non-industrialized countries.

9. Invasive species must be eradicated in order to ensure ecological stability (e.g., Linkola discusses the tragic impact cats and wild minks have on the Finnish wildlife). Based on Linkola's definition, animals are valuable because of their role in the biosphere and ecosystem, as well as their impact on biodiversity and biomass.

10. Free-range domestication of animals, such as cattle, is fine. It is also necessary in places like Northern Finland where it is cold and the soil is not as fertile. However, raising livestock in industrial farms and cramped cages is inhumane.

11. The faith in technology is not based on reason or wisdom. It is a religion. Cultures throughout history have had many better sustainable alternatives to the post-industrial epoch, which was created by arbitrary choices made by a small group of foolish elite individuals.

12. As industrial energy replaces muscle power, man is mechanized and separated from his body.

13. Economic growth is valued more than beauty in our culture, and it is "the reign of money".

14. Societal well-being cannot be equated with technological growth.

15. A large recreational facility is a waste of resources.

16. The spread of Western consumerism, humanism, and indulgence since the mid-20th century has had a devastating global impact.

17. A high infant mortality rate was crucial to genetic winnowing and maintaining stable population levels.

18. The process of reproduction should be regulated by society and, eventually, a world council, without giving in to egalitarian ideals.

19. Linkola encourages acts of terrorism against the industrial order, since "everything that upsets the established order of society, causing chaos and panic, give extra time to nature and, ultimately, humans too."

20. The USA is "the most wretchedly villainous state of all time" that worships the unholy Trinity of the Dollar, Economic Growth, and Market Economy.

The final twenty pages of the book contain Linkola's tentative model for an ecofascist future that would also help end anthropogenic climate change.

[Ingrid · Rating 3 out of 5]

boa parte do livro é pautada nas experiências pessoais do autor o que na minha opinião diminui um pouco a qualidade da obra, já que se ele quisesse defender melhor seus pontos de vista deveria ter se utilizado de fatos, o que acabou por diminuir um pouco a minha avaliação
dito isso, eu gostei do livro pq eu também me preocupo com o meio ambiente e acredito que as questões levantadas são bastante relevantes e que algo deveria ser feito sobre isso, não concordo porém com algumas das sugestões do autor que acaba por ser um pouco extremista em suas soluções (embora acredite que para a resolução desse problema ações extremas deverão ser tomadas).

[Henrik · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays from the controversial deep-ecologist Pentti Linkola. Linkola was a fisherman by profession, and he chose to live a simple life without much materialistic pleasure, and he bemoaned the loss of natural life that he witnessed all around him. Most of these essays are from the 90s and early 2000s.

In the beginning, his essays talk about the decline in bird populations and the disappearance of untouched woods, nothing controversial here. But then gradually one can notice his growing frustration with modern Western democratic values.

Never before in history have the distinguishing values of a culture been things as concretely destructive for life and the quality of life as democracy, individual freedom and human rights - not to mention money. Freedom here means the freedom to consume, to exploit, to tread upon others. All rights, even the most seemingly beautiful women's rights, children's rights, rights for the disabled only express one thing: ME, ME, ME. Pure selfishness has been given a new name: "self-realisation", now considered the noblest of all morals. Words like responsibility, duty, humility, self-sacrifice, nurturing and care are always spat upon, if they still happen to be mentioned.

He rightly criticizes the folly and laziness of modern humans, who often use machinery to do very simple tasks they should be able to do on their own. Most of us have seen the people who drive distances of 2km or less, and who buy a new advanced lawnmower for a tiny patch of grass, etc.

In the autumn I sought the graveyard on three forenoons. Only the third visit was successful: the first two times a large and speedy tractor had raced along the narrow pathways of the cemetery, shaking its gravestones and stone wall.

Before fleeing, I saw what the tractor was doing: with its front shovel it was carrying withered garlands from a grave to a nearby refuse heap. The capacity of the shovel was small, about the same as that of a wheelbarrow. Next, it would probably have transported some dry leaves. I didn't feel like checking, though, and immediately left.

On a daily basis, both at work and in my garden, I carry many things in a wheelbarrow and a small wheel cart, even heavy things and for long distances. I am well aware of the limited efficiency of these means of transport. On the other hand, I am not familiar with the way the parish of Sääksmäki is organised: is the church council in power there, or is it as is often the case in Finland some financial executives with mixed-up values? In any case, whoever may be in charge there has mixed-up values. Besides, I am not that familiar with the economic status of that particular parish. I have read about the great financial difficulties the whole Finnish Church is experiencing, and how many of its employees are getting fired. What I do know, is how much a tractor costs for one hour's work and how much a man's labour. I also know the price wheelbarrow.

Much of the controversy surrounding Linkola comes from his clear and consistent takes on what must be done to reduce the human population. We should stop funding emergency rescues, abortion should be legalized, immigration to save lives should stop, etc. He even considers the terror attacks against the USA in a positive light, as hyper-consumerist America is anathema to everything a deep-ecologist holds sacred.

As a matter of fact, the United States is the most colossally aggressive empire in world history: the number of US military bases around the world is simply bewildering.

Through its bases, the US spreads its economic and cultural influence by profaning, subjugating and silencing others. On all continents it finances and arms the governments and guerrilla movements it favours, frequently switching sides. The US employs death squads to do away with dissidents, and wages war when needed. Every now and then, as a reminder, the US bombs old proud Iraq. The US is the most wretchedly villainous state of all times. Anyone aware of global issues can easily imagine how vast a corrupted, swollen, the hatred for the United States paralysing and suffocating political entity - must be across the Third World - and among the thinking minority of the West too.

On these grounds, it may be assumed that Third World activists are behind the bombings in New York and Washington. These people are waging a desperate battle for their fatherland and faith against an overpowering, not unlike Finns during the Winter gigantic enemy War. Regardless of how alien their religion or culture may be, they certainly deserve all our sympathy. Opposition within the United States is also strong. The case of the Unabomber springs to mind here: his planned, thoughtful model for an alternative society was presented to the Finnish public with a translation of his manifesto. Domestic opposition in the US, however, will hardly have the energy and ability to carry out an operation such as the one we have witnessed in New York: the skill, competence and courage behind the attack has stunned even Western military experts (who, nevertheless, publicly voiced their condemnation of the action). In the US, search for the 'culprits' has now turned into a farce.

He is not a misantrophe, however, he is a lover of life, who sees the human-centric world as dangerous not only to animals and forests, but to humanity, and all life on earth.

What the deep ecologist loves is the whole. Therein lies the grandest beauty, wealth, and love. The deep ecologist does not understand the Christian-Humanist love of man which even at its best only extends to a nation or mankind: this he sees as a form of inbreeding, egotism, masturbation.

What is the position of humanity for the guardian of life? It is that of an interesting, splendid species; for the survival of this species the deep ecologist will fight with all his might. Billions of people, however, represent a threat, not an object of love.

He has some very interesting thoughts about the need to reevaluate morality in the face of ecological collapse, and about humanity's value decreases the more people we beome.

As the world's collapse looms near and the population explosion gains momentum, the conclusions and doctrines of no single thinker or lodestar will prove enduring: we are all but children of our age. Even the knowledge and teachings of a great philosopher and ethicist like Jesus of Nazareth must be measured against the backdrop of the number of people present in his day and the frequency of extinctions. It will then be noted that Jesus' message and moral teaching are for the most part obsolete and no longer applicable.

The crippling human cover spread over the living layer of the Earth must forcibly be made lighter: breathing holes must be punctured in this blanket and the ecological footprint of man brushed away. Forms of boastful consumption must violently be crushed, the natality of the species violently controlled, and the number of those already born violently reduced - by any means possible.

One must realise that now that we have entered the third millennium according to our calendar, there are no longer human individuals: only populations; no individual suffering or pleasure, but only the pruning and survival of populations. And innocent animals, plants and fungi: those that still remain

Linkola is not a thinker I believe will ever become popular. He is too different from what the majority of people are conditioned to believe. Nobody will win any elections preaching population reduction, abandoning material luxury, and a return to a more primitive way of life. Yet it might be what is needed if our species is to survive.

[Pedro Nobre · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you accept Linkola's premises, as most environmentalists do, you cannot escape his logical conclusions.

If you accept that the greatest danger humankind faces is mass extinction, that we should shift back to levels of consumption which predated the industrial revolution, and that we must go back to something like 2 billion human individuals worldwide, all of Linkola's advice follows logically. Even the most deranged ones: the rationing of births, the mass access to euthanasia and abortion, the pushback against technology to the point of giving up electricity, a major overhaul in every single area of the economy, the politics of extermination as a tool for population control, and the flirtation with nuclear disasters hitting major cities across the globe.

I am glad that I have read this book. Linkola is one of the most sincere thinkers I know of, and in his private life he does try to live up to his ideals.

I am recommending this book to all my friends who are radical environmentalists.

Consider that annoying vegan who won't stop pestering you about eating meat. Go full Linkola and point her (most likely her) to one of the chapters in this book, preferably the ones that advocate drowning all house cats and outlawing all international travel that is not done on a bike.

[Jean-françois Virey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a collection of short, mostly circumstantial, largely autobiographical and anecdotal, and very opinionated writings, which feels almost like reading the blog of a curmungeonly misanthrope, except this misanthrope was so adamantly against any form of mechanisation that he would never have written such a thing as a blog. He used to keep his observations on small notebooks and then would type them out on an old-fashioned typewriter (as I learned from videos on the very helpful YouTube channel Linkola Translations.)

The reason why I read this book is that as a deep environmentalist, I was curious to know whether my radicalism went as far as agreeing with that dreaded bugbear: ecofascism, of which Linkola is the prime representative. My previous attempt to test how much sympathy I might have for eco-terrorism was rather unsuccessful, as the eco-terrorist I read about, Ted Kaczynski, turned out not to be much of an *eco*-terrorist in my opinion (though he was undoubtedly a terrorist.) But Linkola, on the other hand, is quite the eco-fascist he is claimed to be, deserving both of the root and the prefix, though I think they should be reversed, in that he was an environmentalist first, and the "fascism", or authoritarianism, is a derivative, and should therefore be more of a prefix.

There are of course quite a few positions of Linkola's I find abhorrent, though I understand their logic. First, he is very indignant at the Finnish law that banned the drowning of cats, holding them to be detestable pets and a true environmental disaster (at least as far as feral, stray and outdoor cats are concerned; indoor cats he will let live, though I guess that if push came to shove, he would gladly drown them all.) Cats, for me, have been family members, whose companionship has been my lifeline, and whose deaths have been some of the most traumatic events I have personally experienced. Like most ecocentrists, Linkola is very unsentimental about individual animals, and would eradicate any member of an invasive species without batting an eye ("it is highly regrettable that game wardens no longer organise shooting contests targeting crows in spring and other harmful birds" p83). He is also very opposed to veganism, sometimes on rather spurious health grounds, sometimes based on a strawman version of the position (vegans eat "grass and salad" p108), and sometimes for quite valuable reasons (in his eco-utopia, where all food is grown locally, and virtually all modern transportation is abandoned, veganism would make the north of Finland uninhabitable, since you can't grow much at such latitudes.) He is also in favour of forced abortions and sterilisations (p136) and eugenics (p186) and he tends to embrace most Malthusian checks on population (including war, though he regrets it is usually made inefficient by the ensuing population and consumption boom; he also more or less cheered 9/11.)

However, I do think his voice needs to be heard, for at least three reasons. First, he was not just an armchair ideologue: he was rooted in the land, an indefatigable observer of forests and birds, and witnessed firsthand the devastation wrought on biodiversity by the modernisation of Finland. Second, he practiced what he preached, unlike most of today's so-called environmentalists: he exemplified the ascetic restraint he thought should be imposed on everyone. And third, he was truly and consistenly committed to the basic ethical principles of deep ecology, and willing to accept all their political and other consequences, however unsavoury, whereas quite a few allegedly "deep" ecologists will often negate their acknowledgement of the "intrinsic value" of nature either at the practical or, even, at the theoretical level (by giving precedence to human interests anyway.)

In a nutshell, Linkola holds that "the whole, the system, the maximum amount of species and diversity is the most sacred thing" (p116), and he treats humans as an invasive species running wild and destroying that most sacred thing ("the swelling mound of human flesh that now already weighs three hundred billion kilos is suffocating all its sisters and brothers" p153). For him, human rights should be scrapped, as the value of individual human beings has been debased by our off-the-charts proliferation (paralleling the devaluation of a currency caused by inflation of its supply.) The two priorities of any sensible ecological policy should be curtailing our numbers (ideally "to about ten percent" of what they are now p185) and our consumption (by reverting to a pre-industrial subsistence economy, with all modern technology apart from a few trains to be compacted and buried, recycled or placed in museums.)

I agree that these two measures, some way or other, are necessary, in exactly the same spirit as he proposes them: "The programme I have outlined is truly born of agony and fear of collective death, the dread of extinction" (p197), and, of course, of a passion for the creativity and magnificence of the natural world (in which "lies the grandest beauty, wealth and love" p165.)

Most readers will be horrified with Linkola's plan for saving the planet (or, more accurately, Finland), with its repudiation of parliamentary democracy in favour of a police state enforcing strict environmental regulations, but the problem is that the alternative (the choatic collapse which, almost certainly, we will be unwilling to avoid) is, in my mind, much more appalling. Indeed, I personally find Linkola's eco-topia a more attractive place in several respects than the precarious world I currently live in, knowing the amount of destruction of the biosphere it has cost, and sharing Linkola's contempt for most of the products of our "affluent society", including tobacco, cars and most forms of entertainment.

I wish Linkola's thought had been given a more rigorously argumented, documented and systematic form, though his unpolished, unceremonious style may be precisely part of his charm, and the impact of his reflections would probably be diluted to nothing if they were rephrased in the more cautious and measured tones of academic discourse.

[Philipp · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting parts (good and prescient points on cats as destroyers of ecosystems - see Australia), a lot of 'it is obvious that', 'everyone can see that' to support his more extreme points, culminating in a 'how I see the perfect state system' that's mostly just a wishlist ('produced things will be sturdy and last for a long time!' [because I say so!] 'mining and imports stop but we'll have solar power for everything!' [you need rare earths/mining for solar power!] 'we'll control births for the more worthy individuals! [but doesn't define what that worth entails]) etc. Just not that interesting.

[Fearless Leader · Rating 4 out of 5]

A selection of essays by Pentti Linkola.

[Domenico Francesco · Rating 2 out of 5]

Molto deluso, soprattutto dopo alcune segnalazioni che mi erano state date in merito. Sapevo già che il pensiero di Linkola era particolarmente estremista per usare un eufemismo ma sono rimasto deluso dal fatto che le sue idee non siano non solo approfondite ma nemmeno spiegate ma solo esposte.
In questa serie di articoli scritti tra la fine degli anni '90 e i primi 2000 Linkola si accanisce contro la società industriale e la tecnologia, ma in maniera molto diversa da Ted Kaczynsky seppur con molti punti in comune: se per Kaczynski l'obiettivo centrale e far cadere la società industriale e la tecnologia ad esso correlata indipendentemente dal come usando l'ecologia e il ritorno alla natura non come un fine ma esclusivamente come un mezzo per contrastare la società industriale per Linkola è il ritorno alla natura l'unico obiettivo cui la distruzione della tecnologia è essenzialmente un mezzo.

Al di là di ciò come già anticipato, il pensiero di Linkola è nullo, sia da un punto di vista filosofico, che sociologico etc., i suoi articoli non hanno solidità né profondità salvo piccolissime eccezioni. Il tono sembra più quello di uno zio boomer e bilioso che si lamenta di come oggi sia tutto una fregatura e la società moderna un inferno vivente mentre alla sua epoca nonostante seppur non avesse nulla, vivesse in una capanna nel bosco senza elettricità né acqua corrente per giunta in un paese provato dalla guerra fosse comunque felice e autosufficiente. Potrebbe indubbiamente essere un buon punto di partenza per molteplici riflessioni sulla società e la natura ma la critica finisce qui, senza alcuna analisi.

Molti articoli sono interessanti nonostante lunghissime digressioni sulla flora e la fauna finlandese a rischio, oggetto di studio dello stesso Linkola che è stato anche ornitologo. Linkola si mostra molto preoccupato giustamente per una grande varietà di patrimonio culturale prossimo a scomparire e non risparmia in un nessun progetto ipotetico pur di difenderlo.

Il programma di Linkola, accennato qua e là in questi articoli ma messo in chiaro anche nel finale è un progetto ben preciso di ritorno alla natura e de-urbanizzazione:
- Riduzione della popolazione umana a poche centinaia di milioni attraverso una decrescita felice che comporti:
- Regolazione delle nascite attraverso il limite imposto di un figlio a coppia, liberalizzazione di aborto, contraccettivi e eutanasia, seppur contro si mostra anche favorevole alla pena di morte (non perché tutti questi metodi funzionerebbero sul breve termine, ma perché nel tempo cambierebbe la percezione della vita umana e del rapporto uomo-natura.
- Riforestazione della maggior parte della rete stradale
- Permettere l'elettricità solo nei luoghi pubblici e nei luoghi di lavoro (ma non per le strade o nelle case private).
- Ridurre l'utilizzo della carta utilizzandola esclusivamente per libri e giornali.
- Interrompere ogni utilizzo di carbon fossile e dei veicoli, ad eccezione dei mezzi pubblici se non per motivi giustificati o lunghe distanze.
- Ridurre l'accanimento terapeutico, l'uso della medicina e l'intervento in condizioni di necessità come vittime di disastri naturali o paesi svantaggiati.
- Sterminio di specie infestanti che danneggino l'ecosistema autonomo come i gatti (interessante l'articolo in cui Linkola illustra come l'importazione del gatto in Scandinavia abbia distrutto in parte l'ecosistema portando all'estinzione di numerosi animali essenziali all'ambiente).

Indubbiamente estremi Linkola non spiega come ciò potrebbe avvenire se non dando la colpa generalmente verso la democrazia. E per questi motivi non sorprende che lo stesso libro sia divenuto un classico imprescindibile per gruppi neo-fascisti, lo stesso editore e curatore di questi articoli d'altronde si è definito un neo-nazista seguace di Anders Breivik.

Però perché il mio giudizio è di due stelline e non una (oltre a leggere il libro in ottica ironica o per il gusto del bizzarro dato dai pensieri di una mente delirante)? Perché in questo lunghissimo i>rant Linkola ha ragione su una cosa: la tendenza di quasi tutti i movimenti ecologisti moderni di essere "troppo morbidi", sia nelle azioni quanto nelle parole, preferendo evitare di dare un'immagine eccessivamente allarmista o radicale. Oggi fortunatamente le cose stanno cambiando su questo punto ma non è affatto scontata come sembra e persino in un libro come questo lo si può avvertire.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good book to get out of your comfort zone. Some of the things Linkola states will sound atrocious, but his framework is quite coherent and follows its own structure of logic (whether correct or not).
It is clear he is very passionate about nature and wildlife, whilst being cynical towards humanity. It is not entirely different from Kaczynski’s philosophy.
Alas, no, I’m not eating food covered in a layer of mold, we’re not in a famine, but yes, he does have a point that some people are extremely fussy.
Yes, people are sedentary and have high screentimes, but totalitarianism/dictatorships aren’t the solution.
And why is he so cross with cats? Why does he NOT want drowning cats to be illegal?
There is a general lack of morals in this book, justifying every means to prevent extinction, but not stopping to ask why, or if, removing morality, personal autonomy and individual freedom is any better than extinction?
Considering all the talk about environmental and animal conservation, food waste, and overeating, it’s befuddling that he doesn’t say to reduce the consumption of animals.

Some of the best points he makes are;
The importance of beauty and the grievous crime of plastering our cities with ugly advertisements.
The rise of anti-intellectualism and the extinction of an educated class. “Civility is dead.”
The earth does not belong to humans alone.
Hunting and forestry are overdone.
“Do unto animals as you’d wish them do unto you,” but he clearly doesn’t follow this.
Some humans have no value, like violent criminals. Every country is overpopulated.
He brings up how much more likely men are to abandon friends and family during sickness and concludes: “The soul of a man, underneath its rough surface, is paradoxically more sensitive and fragile than that of a woman. That of frail men and tough women is not myth, but an established fact of human life.” The whole chapter on women is certainly intriguing.
We should stop building new housing, the number of uninhabited houses is enough to house everyone after reparations.

Now, I agree with some of it and disagree with more, but it is a well-written book with a unique philosophy that covers a lot of topics in only 200 pages. Basically, regardless of my personal opinions on his statements, it is a good work. Hence, I rate it 3.5.

[Big Boy Marty · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the essays included in this collection are interesting and thought-provoking, but quite a few read like the ramblings of an old man (e.g. the essay about how mink affected the black-headed gull population in Tavastia). The last essay is dedicated to Linkola's solution to the ecological issues he describes here, but it is so utopian and divorced from what is pragmatically possible he might as well have left it out.

[Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Linkola is a crazy ride

[Matias Heino · Rating 3 out of 5]

Parhaimmillaan Linkolan tekstit ovat lyyrisesti erinomaisia, liikuttavia ja hauskoja, mutta huomattavan suuri osa tästä kirjasta on samojen asioiden toistelua kyllästymiseen asti. Tämän takia kirjaa tuli luettua satunnaisesti muutama essee kerrallaan ja koko kirjan lukemiseen kului viitisen kuukautta. Eniten Linkolan kirjoituksissa ärsyttää (totalitaristisen tendenssin lisäksi) tietynlainen ylimielisyys, joka ilmenee esimerkiksi siten, ettei hän välttämättä vaivaudu perustelemaan kunnollisesti edes ajattelunsa ydinkohtia ja samaan aikaan toistelee, kuinka hän on yksi harvoista asiat loogisesti loppuun asti ajatelleista ihmisyksilöistä.

[Sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd recommend this book to anyone who has already concluded that democracy is an unsatisfactory way to go about things.

[David Harestad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Linkola is nuts, maybe the kind of nuts we need right now

[Shortsman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Always worth rereading.

[Aden2g · Rating 5 out of 5]

Based

[Tony Milani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ought to be required reading for any remotely serious devotee of the life sciences

[Gianluca Cameron · Rating 2 out of 5]

The kind of thinking that will lead to a rebirth of the Third Reich but couched in an assessment of ecology that may appeal to those concerned with our continued existence despite its incoherence, vagueness and brute-force approach that ignores the specifics of the economics guiding ecological decline. A lot of Linkola's racism seems to come from a place of misanthropy but it is racism nonetheless. However, Linkola is more interesting to read than a bog-standard fascist like Oswald Mosley. He largely dispenses with the nationalist waffle (I have never been convinced that nationalism is anything but a thought-terminating cliche) and clearly outlines his view, leading to unintentionally revealing moments - his chapters on gender politics demonstrate how misogyny can often rest on a bed of misandry and how one can dress up deeply traditionalist analysis in what sounds like an acknowledgement of male privilege/mediocrity. The fact is, attitudes towards women have been progressing faster and faster over the years. His idea that men's lack of emotional intelligence is somehow unchangeable regardless of whether it is innate or socially enforced is disproven simply by looking around in our present culture. To put it simply, his prediction in this area was wrong. It may have been true on the micro level (90s Finland in the specific time he was writing) but on any kind of macro level such an assumption is ridiculous. Linkola may be a compelling character but he is also dangerously wrong and appeals to a kind of crude rationalism that is embedded within many discourses (e.g utilitarianism). It is precisely Linkola's nationalist thinking that is the main contributor to his failure. We may need to consume less but if we cease to hold debts over the many nations we are oppressing and we allow them the chance to become "developed" (hopefully embracing a kind of worldwide dengism so that we may transition to a more left-wing global society). Instead of thinking like an internationalist and asking WHY certain people breed a lot, Linkola instead proposes to cull the population. Population isn't the core issue, resource distribution is. Too much of a focus on overpopulation is the sign of someone who doesn't want to think about the massive effect of resource inequality and the conspicuous consumption of the rich. The segment on 9/11 is the most clear demonstration of the failures of his thought. He uses reasonable-sounding (if vague) critiques of US imperialism to justify valorising the attackers. Overall, Linkola's work gestures at real issues but provides deeply inhumane solutions to the point that I don't want to give him any credit for the few points I do agree with him on (cutting down on private car use) because they are surrounded by so many evil ideas.