You know…it occurs to me to wonder what’s “green” about this.
What’s the goal? All kinds of high-tech fiddling with people’s bodies, using lots of resources, for a goal that’s both impossible and the antithesis of letting nature take its course. For what? For a silly fairy tale, for a game of let’s pretend. How is it green to cheer that on when the reasons for it are so flimsy?
It’s a bad fit.
Comments
5 responses to “Not seeing the green”
Welllll… since the current human population isn’t at a sustainable number, enough high-tech fiddling with people’s bodies that render them infertile would ultimately be beneficial to the environment, no?
I’m not convinced the people in charge of setting party policy are evil geniuses, but it’s the only way I can see to dovetail the two issues :-/
The Green Party hasn’t been about green for a long time. When Obama was first running, I was checking out their website for an article I was writing; they didn’t mention anything about the environment or ‘green’ issues until the last plank – plank ten. Anti-war, anti-racism, anti-homophobia dominated. Yes, those are good causes, but if that’s the case, why not call yourself the ‘good causes’ party, not the ‘green’ party?
Anti-homophobia you mean.
Yes, I meant anti-homophobia. Sorry, had one of those brain farts that seem to come more often once you pass 60.
Fixed.