Are there any philosophical stances, thinkers or books that supports the idea of omnicide or...

Are there any philosophical stances, thinkers or books that supports the idea of omnicide or, at least massive destruction of human life to stop the species from being the major environmental influence it currently is?
I've heard of deep ecology but, while the reasoning seems sound, the suggested solutions feel too tame.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

huff paint and watch max headroom

Look up James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.

Don't believe the hype about global warming (ahem I mean "climate change"). It's a scam offered to useful idiots by the political class. The planet will absolutely survive anything humanity can throw at it. Even nuclear war. Given several million years, Earth will be fine.

Thank you for that but my question was more along the lines of: Is there anyone who says we should kill ourselves to leave the planetary ecosystem alone ?

it's posts like these that are alarming, because people who make these are remarkably firm about how stupid they are, and yet argue from a position of superiority.

the "earth" will be fine. the earth will be fine until our sun slowly consumes the planet, which will be longer after any life can live on planet earth. the concern about climate change is the remarkable change of ecosystem which will impact everyone right down to how they live. millions upon millions of people will starve. instability will return. this is the concern of climate change.

>Earth will be fine.
no shit, it's a huge rock, pretty hard to fuck up. what people are worried about it the stability and continued existence of the biosphere, which is a fragile thing.

You've never heard of deep ecotheology.

'climate change' is not an actual think, it's a joke to move the masses. The real solution is the Second Coming.

Ecotheology is in contradiction with the second sentence of your post though

The biosphere has been hit by a fucking asteroid before. It's fine. Mass extinctions have happened many times. The fragile grasshoppers and ants and birds and horseshoe crabs are all just peachy. You're imagining humans and their pollution technology matter at all. And if humans kill themselves what's the big deal anyway?

Oh. Not that I'm aware of. Antinatalists, I guess. Manicheans were persecuted for such beliefs, as anyone in a labor-intensive agrarian society should have been.

Adding onto this: life exists in total darkness in underground caves. In pools of acid. At the bottom of the fucking ocean, living off geothermal vents. Life on Earth cannot be completely extinguished, and higher orders of primates that have learned how to destroy themselves do not deserve to be saved.

Just read the Wikipedia entry on antinatalism, it's not what I'm looking for but thanks anyway

I just don't see why I should have to pay more taxes in a vain attempt to stop an unstoppable process.

No it's not. 'muh climate change' is for sincere idiots.

Aren't you just thinking of Petti Linkola? There's a few others out there like him as well like the scientist that advocated for a biovirus, forget his name.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Do you know if his writings have been translated ?

>in a vain attempt to stop an unstoppable process

Isn't that why you're working in the first place.

Kek, made my day user.

*claps burgers*

A few I think, and some interviews. I hear they're not too good though but probably still worth a read since you're very interested. Apparently Finnish is a difficult language to translate.

What would you honestly need to know to understand this viewpoint more? Like, I don't understand how you could be sitting on the fence about it. What more do you want to know?

They ONLY aspect of it I find interesting is not whether it should be done (it shouldn't) but IF it was, what would we use to decide who gets done? But you're not going to get any intelligence about that here (people will just shout JEWS NIGGERS etc.), and that is evidence enough for why this line of thinking should not be taken seriously as an option.

Well, the logistics of the whole thing and the population you decide to target seem like nice problems to gather viewpoints on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola