Conservation of Nordic Nature in a Changing Climate

Conservation of Nordic Nature in a Changing Climate report by Nordic council of ministers

Read whole PDF here

Wikipedia on Pentti Linkola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

Pentti Linkola
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Pentti Linkola (December 7, 1932) is a radical Finnish philosopher and environmentalist and an advocate of genocide. He has written widely about his ideas and is without doubt the best-known deep ecologist in Finland. He has retired and works as a professional fisherman.


Life

Linkola grew up in Helsinki. His father Kaarlo Linkola was the Rector of Helsinki University and his mother's father Hugo Suolahti had worked as the Chancellor in the same university. Pentti Linkola did not want to continue his zoological and botanical studies after his first year. He became a free naturalist. During these years he wrote the Suuri lintukirja ("Great Book of Birds") (1955) with O. Hilden.

Linkola's first political publication was author's edition, the pamphlet Isänmaan ja ihmisen puolesta ("For the Man and the Country") (1960), in which he spoke strongly for pacifism and encouraged conscientious objection. However, Linkola himself has completed military service and has a military rank of corporal.


Ideas

In the essay collection Unelmat paremmasta maailmasta ("The Dreams about a Better World") (1971) he spoke for the first time out his ecological attitudes. He has continued to speak against the modern western way of life and the overuse of natural resources, and his latest books Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun ("The Introduction to the Philosophy of the 1990s") (1989) and Voisiko elämä voittaa ("Could Life Prevail") (2004) are collections of his writings that have been published in various Finnish newspapers and magazines.

As a philosopher Linkola can be described as a biocentric empirist. He demands that man return to a smaller ecological niche and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic progress. Linkola considers population growth the biggest threat to life on Earth. He advocates eugenics and genocide as a means to combat overpopulation.


Support for terrorism

Linkola has expressed his support for terrorism like 9/11 or Unabomber.


Guru status

Pentti Linkola has encountered a lot of opposition with his criticism of the affluent western society, but many look up to him as a sort of a guru, largely because he lives as he teaches. He doesn't own a car; he earns his living by fishing from a rowing boat and selling the fish from door to door with a horse.

Bibliography

* Linkola, Pentti & O. Hilden: Suuri Lintukirja. Otava 1955, renewed edition 1962.
* Isänmaan ja ihmisen puolesta: Mutta ei ketään vastaan. Fourth edition. Helsinki: Suomen sadankomitealiitto, 1981 (third edition 1970).
* Linkola, Pentti: Pohjolan linnut värikuvin: Elinympäristö. Levinneisyys. Muutto. Otava 1963-67.
* Linkola, Pentti: Unelmat paremmasta maailmasta. Fourth edition. Porvoo: WSOY, 1990.
* Linkola, Pentti: Toisinajattelijan päiväkirjasta. Porvoo: WSOY, 1979.
* Linkola, Pentti & Osmo Soininvaara: Kirjeitä Linkolan ohjelmasta. Porvoo: WSOY, 1986.
* Linkola, Pentti: Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun. Porvoo: WSOY, 1989.
* Ekologiseen elämäntapaan: johdantoartikkeli. Yliopistopaino, 1996.
* Linkola, Pentti: Voisiko elämä voittaa. Helsinki: Tammi, 2004.

Also:

* Kämäräinen, Kauko: Linkola, oikeinajattelija. Tampere: Määrämitta, 1992.


External links

* Plausible Futures Newsletter Traces Linkola's career in the Green movement, and the connections between fascism and ecology (he has often been called an "eco-fascist" - some say he styles himself one).
* Church of Euthensasia reports a Wall Street Journal-Europe interview in which he expresses the view that World War III would be: "a happy occasion for the planet.... If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."
* Who is Pentti Linkola? More quotes and information from a supporter's website, including his feelings about the human race:

"Such a lousy animal species that it would not survive even one million years, even though all now extinct species survived much longer."

* Finnish-English translation project of his 2004 book: Voisiko elämä voittaa A project aiming at bringing writings of Linkola to a wider audience, still at its early stages but steadily going forward.

Pentti Linkola, from Taivaansusi

From Taivaansusi website, originally in Finnish

Pentti Linkola - Prophet on his own planet

Pentti Linkola is without any doubt one of the most agitational thinkers in Finland. Everytime this 63 year old fisherman makes the decision to stand up to the spotlight of publicity, his statements cause the neck hair of all those hibernating in their self satisfaction rise. Naturally even the City magazine, the main magazine for urban lifestyle in Finland, can't even decide if he is "seriously taken prophet for apocalypse" or "just a sadistic nutcase bully.

Last year at a lecture organized by Forum Humanun Linkola declared for example that an induvidual who still believes in a human being has fallen out of all rational conversation, that EU, that strives for useless effectivity, is senseless praising multiplied by who knows how much, and that western culture is awful and shameful setback in the history of human kind. Most part of the audience was genuinely upset. The ones with the most twisted sense of humour understood the gags and laughed out loud. One could notice a small smile visiting also Linkola's face.
The funniest part in all was that the objections presented by audience couldn't annul the heavy propositions performed by the lecturer. By comparing human's and bug's spiritual life at the beginning of his speech Linkola introduced his listeners to a weird level of philosophy and logic, where normally crazy sounding claims seemed like facts. In the Linkola world the sun power really was desctructive - not really where the energy is gotten from but to what it is used for.


Human is an error of evolution

If you could change something in this world, what would be the first thing to work on?

"Of course I'd solve this population problem. I'd drop the amount of population to way less than 2 billion, which is the amount this planet can bare. Also I'd idolate vaste areas for other species. People could live for example in the Mediterrian countries, where, of course, should be collected an archive of all the achivements of all the cultures."

Is there any ways to accomplish this kind of a goal?

"That's all just speculation. Of course some gang of nuclear physicists could take over the power and start a limited nuclear war using all their professional knowledge. To avoid environmental damage they should of course use neutron bombs."

How have we ended up in situation where this radical acts would be needed? Has there been somekind of an error in evolution?

"Error or mistake or cancer, what ever name you want to use. Human has too good co operation between brains and hands, and thus he has the elements of desctruction in him. Then there are some controlling systems, but there isn't enough of them. In some societies they have worked too. And anyways, there is always some people who can see that we're heading for hell. But there isn't plenty of us. The biggest threat to life is too much of life."

The population problem is the worst especially in third world countries. What do you think, should these countries be helped and if yes, what kind of help?

"Mostly help to plant forets and then guarding the planted seedlings. Other ways they will go back to their clay houses and take those freshly planted trees to the ovens of those clay huts. And naturally one could give help to birth control, but definitely not any other kid of charity."

How far would you be ready to go with controlling the population from growing?

"Birth control definitely shouldn't be in the hands of an individual. The power should be on the state or world government. Just if father and mother can freely to decide how many kids they will have means no hope for us. And then some people are agaist abortion. That's just absurd, but luckily it's been decreasing lately. If people imagine that every individual should have full human rights straight from fetus forward it means there won't be any solution to this problem. People have to understand that we aren't valuable or unique individuals.
When we start solving this population problem I'd prefer if we could start from new born children than elderly people. Just like any other species, human grows wiser with age. I'd prefer to accept the killings of new born than making old people's lives shorter."

But you have kids yourself. Aren't they a moral problem for you?

"I have two daughters and they have only one offspring in total even as they are already over their thirties. I do have good conscience at least in this population matter so far. I already back in the 60s was thinking of this population boom question and with my wife we decided that two kids is absolute maximum."

Sexual murderers to gas chamber

You mentioned that you felt good when they hung criminals that had killed endangered elephants. Do you have the same view on death penalty in generel?

"Of course. It's hideous that even the sexual murderers of children are kept alive. It's absurd. But the moral aspect isn't important but understanding that a such protecting approach to human life is a plug to solving the population problem. When there is death penalty in use the value of human life is in its correct place. Amnesty International works for good when it's agaist some tortures, but when it's trying to get rid of death penalty it's going to the wrong direction."

Many think that that kind of ideas are cruel or even crazy. Do you think so as well?

"Maybe in this context they are cruel. But there isn't any good alternative. No matter how you look at it, there are too many people in the world and half should be gotten rid of. Any self respecting futurologist can predict just more and more of ecological catastrophes and more of wars between humans.
I'm not enough of a biologist to say that I'd say that it isn't bad at all to get rid of 3-4 billion individuals from the face of the earth, even as all my life I've been following different bird flocks whose population goes down fast and then rises again.
And we did see in WW2 Nazi Germany what's the price of a human life. But in few years the price of it went up to level of priceless and all these redcrosses and mothertheresas are dong well. If WW2 killed some dozens of millions of humans, in gas chambers some 6 million and in Stalin's attacks some 10 million, so where can you see it now? In the morals?"

Freedom of an individual is ridiculous

Define your connection to religion?

"I'd need the coordinates of the god before I could believe in one. Sometimes it's hard to believe in the existance of electricity as well, as you can't see that either. But at least there is somekind of proofs that it does exist.
Belief itself has plenty of good, I think, as somehow it is a conservative and preserving factor, that helps slowing down progression and thus weakens the speed of nature's desctruction. Church does follow the earthly society few steps behind, first there's the dish washing machine, then kitchen's general purpose machine and naturally after these follows female priests.
And then there's the laestadian movement that tries to fill the earth. That should be criminalized."

You're views on democrazy and freedom of an individual are quite negative. Why?

"The main reason is the proof. All these catastrophies of natural systems and all that show that this isn't working. The main thing is that an average person shouldn't be in control. It's ridiculous to think that a human would know what is best for him.
And what is normal human's individual rights? It's that you can write to a magazine that the bus stop at some suburb should be moved to another corner. Normal human doesn't want to critisize the system or the president, he can just whine a bit just for the trend of it. But when the election comes will these same people vote for the Naturelaw or Ecological party? No, they will vote for the normal big parties because they are so obedient. And they don't care for freedom of an individual.
And freedom of speech is just perfect silliness. Who suffered from lack of freedom of speech in Soviet Union? Andrei Saharov, Solzenitsyn and few others. If we lived in some dictature I could be one of those demanding for freedom of speech. But maybe not, if I noticed if the system was good."

Weirdassness

You've thought that in an ideal society the work would be people's other job, and for example adult education should be banned.

"No theorietical studies, dear god, after 25 years of age! The natural learning age of human is the youth and if after that he is shown a job that goes with his talents and tendencies, he will be happy doing it until he reaches the pension age. And pensionage would be one according to one's condition and not some magical agelimit. We could afford this kind of system and it would also make it possible to have jobs for inferior workers.

In this current philosophy of reorganization people are being fired no matter in what branch, when some try to gain surplus. And then they wonder about unemployment."

Before we could reach this ideal society there should be something that could be done already.

"If a man wants to make the planet's situation better on his own half he can make some changes in his practical life. One can live in as small aparment as possible and lower the room temperature to 18 degrees. And definitely not own a car, but rather use the public transport or taxis. Both will be much cheaper alternatives in the long run for the household as well. This way we could get some time-out for nature.

And the information technology isn't any real well being, it doesn't bring us a single egg or any other materia. And the standard of living doesn't get better because of mobile phones, that's just foolishness."


Do you live according to your principles?

"I of course want to be an example. I still use a work horse in my occupation and I don't have a car, TV, water piping or plumbing systems. I do have electricity, as one always has to do compromises. But I've noticed that all this remains as just an example that none of my neighbors have followed."

Liquidating the know-how

You've proposed that right now it would be enough just to liquidate the highest technology experts working for industry. Were you serious or did you just want to provocate?

"It would be one good way to stop or at least slow down the trembling of nature's balance. There's always more industry leaders but talents don't last forever."

What do you think about actual eco terrorism?

"Morally it is obviously justified, but there's no sense of hitting your head straight away to the police shields. There's not many of those people who care about this planet that they shouldn't be wasted on some kamikaze attacks."

You've never been part of that actual terrorism. If there was a new group forming that would be ready for direct action, would be you ready to take a role as for example as mentor?

"I'd be happy to. And there has been all kinds of plans during the years. But you're right, I've been only participating to non-violent attacks and been paying tens of thousands of Finnish mark for fines and court fees."

Would you be ready to sacrifice your life for nature preserving, if in that way you could save for example some worm species?

"This should be asked from some younger fellow comrade, as I'm already this old, and there's not necessarily that much lust for life left. Of course I would be ready to sacrifice myself, even for a small thing. In fact there are periods when I would be ready to die for nothing at all."

Your thoughts clearly have been growing more cynical and nihilistic. In the 60s you were talking about pasificism and now you would be ready to accept all kinds of blood deeds without a blink. Where does this progress come from?

"My great ideological opponent Urho Kekkonen said that one gets more radical with age. I'd prefer thinking that my thoughts have changed because the world has changed."

You are one of our most quoted thinkers and even New York Times have been presenting your thoughts. Do you think you have made a difference with your declarations?

"It's really hard to say. Lot of people who think the same way as me believe that my thoughts have had a more effect but I haven't seen any concrete influence. The world's situation at the moment is already a such that at least I can't make it worse."