Corrupt

• Goal
• Data
• Act

Pentti Linkola (1932 - )

Introduction

Pentti Linkola was born on December 8th, 1932, in the Finnish capital of Helsinki. His father was a professor of Botany at the University of Helsinki and the founder of Finland's Association for Nature Conservation. He gained a great interest in nature through his high school biology teacher, and began to write essays on ecology and science with great fascination. His first published literary work was a book on birds in collaboration with O. Hilden entitled Suuri Lintukirja ("Great Bird Book", 1955). Sixteen years later he brought out his first true ecological piece, 'Dreams of a Better World'. With this work he saw his previous optimism for humanity falter, and instead suggested that a complete change in mindset was required for nature and humanity to continue in any form. From then on he set himself apart as someone who believed society must set aside the petty and fleeting desires of the individual. Over these many years he has produced several books, given many lectures and speeches, and carried on a personal lifestyle that he deems ecologically sustainable. He maintains a popular following in his native home of Finland, received the Eino Leino prize for excellence in literature. His last released book was in 2004 (Could Life Win – And on what Conditions?), and he currently lives in retirement as a fisherman.

Ideas

Beauty and Structure of Nature

The relationship with nature is absolutely essential in constructing everyone's worldview.

Linkola talks of a balance that exists in nature, an equilibrium that underlies everything in often subtle ways. This stability acts through many mechanisms that ensure populations remain stable, and are able to adapt to circumstances which may arise. Many species hold self-regulating birth control systems which stop them from repeatedly falling into disastrous situations and suffering from hunger. Diseases spring up on many occasions to reduce highly dense populations, ensuring that ecosystems remain balanced. Humans have been able to escape these fail-safes for the time being through health care, limited population controls and modern technology. Linkola thinks that repercussions are inevitable, and the sooner we take notice, the less damage we will do both to ourselves and the system we live in, the better off we will be.

Another element that Linkola stresses is that of nature existing beyond typical morals and duality. Unlike the typical Green politicians we see today who appeal primarily to emotion, Linkola loves both the vicious and the caring sides of nature. There is no evil in the hunt of the carnivore, or in starvation or disease. These are simply natural occurrences within this system. Their existence ensures that the system as a whole remains stable as well as ensuring the continuation of life itself. He calls for the destruction of creatures in his homeland that have been given through humans the opportunity to breed unrestrictedly, and as such have damaged much of their surrounding ecosystem. While Greens and many other members of society love cats, Linkola wishes to remove them for the amount of animals they kill without acting as a typical predator. Such logic is beyond the typical environmentalist who acts out of simplistic compassion rather than holistic analysis.

All of these components are important because humanity as a species, no matter how exceptional we argue it to be, remains within this structure and continues to be bound by its laws. All our actions result in effects, and should always be considered in in the context of what impact they have on the overall ecosystem. Yet Linkola says that this level of thought is almost completely neglected in the modern age. People think of themselves as in some kind of separate world, where they are able to do everything and anything without incurring serious consequences. A distinction is made between society and nature, whereby the latter is imagined to exist in some far away forest, jungle, ocean or mountain and is felt to have nothing to do with us anymore. Yet this structure provides the very basis of life from which we have stemmed, and our species is inevitably interlinked with its continued survival. Linkola asks that we refocus our worldview to one that affirms the system as a whole. We exist in this reality and without a realistic perspective on the structure that has manifested it, we will ultimately perish.

Problems of Modern Society

Over decades of study, Linkola has observed many distinctive flaws in the structure of modern society. Modern environmentalists will usually operate in some specific niche such as Animal Rights, Global Warming or any number of other elements. Yet some, including Linkola, point to a deeper problem that lies within the mindset of the modern human. As a result of the rise of humanism beginning in the Enlightenment, each human life has become viewed as something sacred that must ultimately be preserved at all costs. Billions of people flood the planet and consume all they can, yet contribute little to society. Abstractions that hold absolutely no basis in the world outside our minds such as 'freedom' and 'progress' provide the ultimate foundation of society, serving as a justification for nearly unrestricted breeding and rampant devastation. Thousands of species have been wiped out, the concrete desert expands across the earth, and yet people imagine that switching to 'green' products will fix all our environmental problems. Linkola presents a harsh yet very real existence that will not continue to accommodate for our refusal to acknowledge it.

Overpopulation and the value of human life

At the present time we currently have around 7 billion people on the planet. This is expected to reach around 9 billion by the year 2050. To many people in this modern age, that is a magnificent thing, the rationale being that the more people we have, the more people are enjoying life and having a good time. Some even suggest that with higher population numbers, we can create greater things than ever before, better books, technology, music, even ideas. If there are more people around, that must mean we can do more and better than ever before. Right?

Linkola is one of the few in the current time who directly assault this frame of mind, the emphasis on quantity and the notion of an inherent value in human life. Unlike the utilitarian outlook of modern society, he asserts that humans do not have some distinct intrinsic worth which must be protected.

I find it almost inconceivable that even an intelligent individual can still, despite all evidence, believe in man and the majority, and continuously keep hitting his head on the wall. How can he not admit even in this situation that man is possible only - when nature cannot do it anymore - when the discipline, banning, enforcement and oppression of another clear-sighted human prevents him from indulging in his destructive impulses, to commit suicide? How does he justify democracy? Does he not still see that unless man, Western culture, grows humble and bows very deeply, he will assuredly ransack and scavenge the globe to its bones, no matter how he would change chemicals into others and switch his methods of energy production? How can he not perceive that if we hold to man's rule over nature and preserve the value human life has in Western nations, only a straight road into the black pit of extinction remains? How can anyone think so insanely that human life has the same value and mankind the same morality, independent of numbers? It is clear to me that every time a new child is born, the value of every human in world decreases slightly. It is obvious to me that the morality of the population explosion is wholly unlike than when man was a sparse, noble species in his beginning. (Linkola, 2004)

He asks why exactly we place such an emphasis on every single piece of human life, especially in those that contribute nothing and yet act as the greatest weights on society. We live within a vast structure that repeatedly puts forth new concepts and ideas, slowly shaping and rewarding those that adapt and grow while discarding any that are flawed. Individual animals that are weak or defective are usually hunted down first. Yet humans in this age have attempted to remove this basic mechanism within the structure, living within the safe confines of their cities and preserving every life no matter the cost. In this propensity to preserve life, the natural struggle to grow is neglected as we uphold the failures and drag those of excellence down. Notions of equality ultimately lead to a sacrifice in human quality for quantity, as societies must operate according to the lowest common denominator.

Linkola first argues that there can be no future for any humans with the current population levels. Our ecosystems only have so much resources to provide, and can only replenish at a certain rate. Every time our population increases, we are required to feed, house, dress, and provide a meaningful existence for this extra person. Modern societies go beyond the basic level of consumption, resorting to all manner of products to quell our boredom with our 9-5 lifestyles. Our societies are built on ideas that actually give us no real meaning in our lives, so we seek to fill the void through all manner of entertainment and products.

Our consumption, which is furthermore strengthened through unrealistic ideas like freedom, helps us to remain distracted from our uninteresting lives which do not grant us fulfilment in any significant sense. With huge numbers of people living according to these beliefs, millions of differentiated products are created to satisfy all and yet resources are stripped from the land at an astronomical rate. The landscape is firstly carved up for its resources, and then paved over to make way for the perpetually expanding cities and suburbs. With more people comes the requirement to build further housing and increase production to compansate for this higher demand. If most people seriously look at their city over the past 15-20 years, this expansion is very obvious. Furthermore, if one were to look back 100 years, the juxtaposition of the two environments becomes even more apparent. What were once just forests and countrysides have slowly been swept away as more people have been brought into existence. Former towns expand out and upwards, until their edges touch one another and they carpet the landscape. Linkola recounts his experiences in his homeland of Finland, the disappearance of the wildlife that he has observed over his years of study, the rampant destruction of the wilderness, and perhaps worst of all, the attitude of passivity that people display to it all.

Additionally, he asks, what is the purpose in stretching population numbers to the maximum? What benefit do we truly obtain from ensuring the continued survival of every single person?

Who misses all those who died in the Second World War? Who misses the twenty million executed by Stalin? Who misses Hitler's six million Jews? Israel creaks with overcrowdedness; in Asia minor, overpopulation creates struggles for mere square meters of dirt. The cities throughout the world were rebuilt and filled to the brim with people long ago, their churches and monuments restored so that acid rain would have something to eat through. Who misses the unused procreation potential of those killed in the Second World War? Is the world lacking another hundred million people at the moment? Is there a shortage of books, songs, movies, porcelain dogs, vases? Are one billion embodiments of motherly love and one billion sweet silver-haired grandmothers not enough?

Progress

Where is our society heading? When was our beginning, and when shall be our end? These questions have been contemplated throughout the ages; and yet no answer has come close to the theory concocted by the modern age. By its reasoning, there is a linear scale of societal quality that moves from before us to ahead of us. Before us came those in mudhuts that only lived to the age of 30, believed in superstitious nonsense and barely even cleaned themselves. Nowadays we live to 70, we have entertainment that requires very little mental or physical engagement, and we don't have to worry about being set on by vicious predators and frosty winters. It cites examples of technology, length of life, lack of hardship and removal of cultural practices deemed uncivilized. Yet Linkola challenges us to actually think whether this is a true measure of meaning in our lives. Are we happy in our jobs, amongst the towering structures of cold metal and the trendy Ipods, the Britney Spears and Green Day? Or is there something else missing, something that the 'freedom', 'growth' and 'progress' of the modern age can never really provide for us?

The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity brings enjoyment and happiness - even though all the evidence in history has shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that this material prosperity brings only despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks. (Linkola)

Most people today work longer hours than at almost any other time in history, usually 40 or more per week. These jobs predominantly involve repetitive and usually boring activities, whether balancing accounts, putting bolt A into hole B, or convincing some faceless person you will never see again to buy from your shiny new dishwashing range. If one were to ask most of the workforce today, they'd rather be doing something else with their time - possibly spending time with family, engaging in something they find interesting, perhaps even creating something of worth. Yet 'progress' has led us to an age where all these things are sidelined, and instead we are stuck doing something that is not very meaningful to us.

Even in our free time, most individuals seem content to sit and do nothing that really fulfils them, sitting down on the couch and watching TV, or hitting the clubs on a Saturday night and getting inebriated. People say 'it's fun, everyone does it!' But will we look back in 20 years time, and wish we had just one more Corona, one more Friends episode, one more night among the neon lights and pumping bass? Or perhaps it is other things we will remember: family, creating and thinking - actions that correspond to our inherent systems of belief, which are simply mirrors of a greater structure.

Linkola discards the notion of progress, instead suggesting that what meaning and fulfilment we can find in life has been here for ages past. If one reads the ancient Vedic texts, the Eddas of Northern Europe or the Qur'an, there is a definite sense of meaning that exists beyond passing fancies and trends. People did not believe that life would offer more fulfillment in the future than in the past, simply by virtue of the flow of time. They could always find direction and meaning by looking to the system they existed in.

Industrialism and Technology

For several hundred years we have been able to produce at much greater rates than ever before. Our technology has been developing at astronomical rates that allow for great increases in production and output. Factories have come into existence, transportation methods have shifted dramatically, and mass production has become the norm. Linkola asserts that this drastic change is both dangerous and unnecessary, and much of it should be destroyed.

Many would be shocked at such a statement. Many of our health solutions would disappear, as would many methods of transportation, and entertainment like movies and television. Yet Linkola thinks firstly that none of these entities are truly necessary, and also that their use facilitates an unhealthy mindset that undermines our ability to perceive reality.

The foundational argument for technology is that it eases life. Eases and eases, all the easier invention by invention. Easy, easier, easiest. In reality man has been a sovereign creature on the globe without rivalry since the stone age, a thing whose life has been unnaturally and hopelessly cushy. Since then the actual problem of man has been physical ease, meaninglessness, rootlessness and frustration. (Linkola, Could Life Win - and on What Conditions?, 2004)

With the advent of industry and technology we have been able to live with much less effort and hardship than previously. The winter cannot easily breach our snug houses, we don't normally have to worry about obtaining our own food, and there are no predators, no significant threats of disease, no struggles. However these forces shaped our ancestors, and helped to refine them and give them a better understanding of nature and reality. In the struggle to survive in the elements, the hunt, they were able to see themselves within a greater structure. There is no 'evil' in the frost, the hunger, or death like most people think today. One should seek to utilise these to battle outside and inside themselves in order to find meaning in existence and grow. Linkola believes that much of what industrialism and technology have done is take us away from these forces. Within our simplistic but often dull lives, people place labels like 'good' on everything that brings pleasure and 'evil' on all that is pain, and seek to affirm the former while denying and destroying the latter. Linkola thinks the ease of life that we draw up for ourselves with technology and industry only cultivates a confused and unrealistic worldview.

Linkola also attacks industrialism and technology for the destruction they craft onto the land, and furthermore says that this cannot continue without grave consequences for both us and the planet. He often talks of the forest in his native Finland, of the industry that has undeniably changed the Finnish landscape for the worse.

Finland, whose forest economy is the largest environmental disaster of post-war Europe, holds the record in the latter statistic (amount of trees in remaining forest). After the clearing of fields that was carried out centuries ago, an even nearly comparable upheaval has not occurred on this continent: Finland's over 200,000 km² of forests have morphed into deserts, or bushy prairie at the best. The mean amount of wood in a full-grown forest south of Lapland is 400-500 m³ per hectare. Some years ago the wood reserve of the country was 90 m³ per hectare according to the Forest Industry's (i.e. the Department of Forest Research) own estimation, but it has become evident - for example, along all forest transactions - that there is 10-20 % air throughout the statistic (in farm-specific estimations of forest balance). The actual amount of wood is somewhere between 50 to 70 solid cubes per hectare after the massive fellings of recent years. It is a full 10 % of the volume of natural woodlands.

Forests that are home to thousands of species, and form an essential part of the ecosystem, are being destroyed. All around the industrialized world this destruction is becoming increasingly evident. Landscapes that once teemed with greenery and life are now bare eyesores. Forests and wetlands that once functioned as sponges for heavy rains are paved over and developed, so floods become commonplace in nearby towns. Forestry companies and businesses often claim, 'we replant all the trees we cut down', or 'our activities are extremely sustainable', and yet these trees take many years to properly grow to the strength of what the forests of old were. Linkola thinks that these people only hold the dollar as their ideal, so their motivations will always be in this regard and never towards a holistic, sustainable approach.

Many would say that today our industry and technology are changing to care more for the environment. Look at the great effort to stem global warming, the use of green products and technologies! However none of these address the core of the problem; they merely clip at the various effects we see visibly popping up around us. Linkola attacks the typical 'Green' mentality which supposes we should change what we buy, instead of why and how we buy. Various activities manifest themselves over time, yet all are subject to the same mindset. Simply changing what we buy or produce will not address why we made and utilised it in the first place.

Democracy

Linkola is very clear about what he thinks of democracy. In his eyes it is the worst system of government to ever have been created. It places faith in the majority to decide what is best for them and elects those that provide 'bread and circuses' rather than viable solutions.

"A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her...Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, similarly only very few are able to solve the matters of the nation and humankind. Only rare people can perceive the connections between matters in the big picture, and to unravel the key questions: what caused each fact and to what will it lead. In this time and this part of the World we are heedlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments in the history of mankind...In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most...Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen."

Most people will elect someone who claims they want to 'decrease pollution', or increase the proportion of 'green' cars. But no one will elect an individual who will forcibly stop, harm and offend by taking drastic action like Linkola and others suggest. Under such a person, citizens would not be allowed to easily build wherever they want, they wouldn't be able to buy all manner of entertainment, and they couldn't continue to breed as much as they wanted to. Democracy and the 'freedom' it provides allow anyone to do generally anything except violate current public taboos. People are allowed to do what they like, and with no true leader to guide them, they very often decide on what is immediately ahead of them and brings temporary comfort. In order to be elected, politicians must cater to people's desires, however misguided. They must promise to make everyone happy, offend no one and offer quick fixes to whatever is hurting people (green cars for global warming, increased prison sentences for crime, gun control for school shootings). However Linkola says that none of this actually works to alleviate the larger problem.

For Linkola, leaders are the few that have the capability to manage a community, create cultural consensus and urge others into action. They often have to make difficult decisions that may hurt some, or make sure someone can't do exactly what they want. They wouldn't let someone build a McDonalds over an area of forest as there is no real need for that, and it would destroy so much. People may not be allowed to breed as much as they want, but this will ensure the community acts sanely in regards to both itself and the environment on which is depends. If anyone were to bring up these notions in a democratic system, they would be called fascist or insane, then quickly become political and social outcasts. For Linkola these decisions, despite their culling of freedoms, are something that is necessary for any life to continue. Democracy, however, will never accommodate for this.

Solutions

Linkola advocates a massive change in direction for modern society, one that involves a culling of freedoms, reduction in our growth and technology, replacing democracy with strong leadership, and an immense reduction in population numbers. He wants to prevent people from having more than one child for a significant period, until there is only a fraction of the current population on the planet. He suggests relinquishment of much of modern technology and industry. Furthermore he also asserts that we require harsh leadership that does not compromise for individual wants, in the form of a dictator. Many disapprove and say we do not have to go to such lengths, that moderate methods like green products and different sources of energy will solve the problem. But over Linkola's years as a biologist and fisherman he has seen much that has led him to these measures.

Eugenics and Depopulation

The cornerstone of a minimal population platform is the dismantling of the freedom of birthing, the most senseless form of individual freedom.... Birthgiving is based on license, and the amount of births per woman is one on average for so many generations that we have reached a sustainable population load. The quality of the population must be taken care of in all circumstances, however. So, the birth-giving license is not granted for genetically or growth environment-wise worthless homes, while families that are first-rate in regards to their incentives, are permitted several licenses.

For Linkola, the massive, unprecedented population growth of the past few centuries has become the greatest threat to life itself in the current age. “The worst foe of life is too much life”. He asserts that we should decrease our population drastically, and furthermore take steps to ensure that the best of the population are given higher priority. This solution cuts to the heart of our current civilization, and will no doubt draw up much opposition. The concepts of equality and freedom are ingrained into our belief system, and this proposition attacks both of them. Yet there is nothing but logic and a deep realisation of reality at the core of Linkola's assertion. Every extra person on the planet drains resources, and resources are finite. The planet can only replenish at a certain rate, and from the analysis of Linkola and many others we have gone far past this. Furthermore there is no real benefit from having the highest number of humans possible.

He suggests that our depopulation program should as a rule of thumb allow one birth per family until a suitable population is maintained. At this point we would increase births to about two per family to keep the population at steady level. This suitable gloobal population level would be less than half a billion, which is a large amount for a creature requiring the amount of resources as ourselves, and well above what the global human population has been for most of human history. With this level there would be enough for most populations around the planet to continue to exist, and even ecologically unsound practices would not be potent enough to destroy our habitat as we are doing today. People could always have abortions for free, and contraception would be the same. Taboos on such things would not play over people's heads as they do today.

Furthermore, Linkola recommends that we strive to breed the best among us. Those that display the best characteristics are encouraged to breed, while those that are of lesser quality are discouraged. Such mechanisms have always existed in the structure of nature itself; those that adapt, survive and grow are rewarded. However man's mechanisms to ensure this have been somewhat limited, and the reaction of nature to negative behaviour has often been slow in relation to our civilizations' lifetimes.

A great many species have self-regulating birth control mechanisms which prevent them from constantly falling into crisis situations and suffering from hunger. In the case of man, however, such mechanisms - when found at all - are only weak and ineffective: for example, the small-scale infanticide practiced in primitive cultures. Throughout its evolutionary development, humankind has defied and outdistanced the hunger line. Man has been a conspicuously extravagant breeder, and decidedly animal-like. Mankind produces especially large litters both in cramped, distressed conditions, as well as among very prosperous segments of the population. Humans reproduce abundantly in the times of peace and particularly abundantly in the aftermath of a war, owing to a peculiar decree of nature.

Linkola seeks to reintroduce the natural mechanisms which we as of late have been able to shrug off. Eugenics is simply a means of ensuring this system returns to us. We all live within reality, and only by accepting, affirming and continuing this existence can we survive.

Reduction in industry and technology

Perhaps his most confrontational statement regarding industry and technology lies in the following;

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.

While this does seem rather extreme, Linkola feels that most creations of the modern age have had a negative influence on the environment and even ourselves. This relates to his comments on the 'ease' of life, that idea that technology and industry give us an easier existence. He thinks that by living along these lines, we destroy much outside and also within ourselves. Our environments are ravaged and destroyed, and we ourselves are left with an unfulfilling existence. For these reasons he thinks that our productive capacity should be immensely reduced, and most of our newfound technology destroyed or abandoned.

Manufacturing would be limited to licenses, granted on the basis of necessity. Somebody would have to prove that their product actually was required and somebody else needed it. Larger corporations would be state-owned and be used for things such as public transportation equipment and bicycles. People wouldn't continuously purchase new products all the time, and instead there would be a directive to make quality products that would last, and to and repair those in need.

He believes the transportation industry should be limited, with most populations moving to and living in a local area. The services that are required should be easily reachable by methods like foot, rowing, cycling and skiing. Private automobile use would cease, with public transportation and shipping trucks constituting the majority of road traffic. Most road networks are cleared and reforested.

As for energy, he says we should almost completely cease our use of electricity. Minor use could be had in energy for the media and for illumination, but on the whole it is gone. Firewood would be used as the predominant source of energy, regulated and its efficiency developed immensely. He says that the electricity we actually require should come from wind power, while other power plants are destroyed. He advocates the complete removal of waterpower, calling it the 3rd greatest ecocatastrophe.

Agriculture is moved into a much smaller scale, and the use of technology within it is cut. He says that machines should be abolished and instead there should be use of 'light, work-focused methods'. Greenhouses are only active during the warm season through solar power, while fruit and vegetables are only available in their natural seasons. A general effort is made towards giving households the skills to perform basic food-related techniques like souring and salting. Overall a country should be more than self-sufficient for its food production. Foodstuffs are scaled to age, body size and type of work, but gathering products and self-sufficient cultivation are free of control.

All of these methods may sound very harsh to us, but how many of these revoked conveniences would be altogether missed and yearned for? If everything we really need is in bicycling distance then we don't really require cars. Would we really miss the multitudes of basic television shows? While fast food and other such products might taste good, everyone knows that they will eventually screw you over. There is much to be had in the basic things around us, the beautiful sunset, ancient texts, and our families. People have been living in this manner for tens of thousands of years, and they rarely became suicidal or lazy.

I will arrive at an amusing observation in the end. Besides guaranteeing its main goal, the preservation of life, the formulated model of society would provide surprisingly also an incomparably better standard of living. What are those sweet, dear things of the modern world that man would lose? They are: record statistics of suicides, panting competition, unemployment here, job stress there, renovations and insecurity in work life, alienation, desperation, mountains of psychological medicine measured in tons, the decline of body and diseases of the living standard, the unbelievable arrogance of the individual, quarrel, corruption,crime.

What man would be left with: unhurried socialization between people, the endless spectrum of arts and hobbies: singing, music, dancing, paintings, sculptures, books, games, plays, riddles, shows; all of enormous museum activity, research of history, home region, dialect, family; the millions of biologist's themes, handcrafts, gardens; clear waters, virgin forests, marshland plains and fells; the seasons, trees, flowers, homes, private life - by definition: life.

Linkola's measures for industry and technology may seem strict by our current measure, but they would both reduce the harm we cause to our environment as well as allow our minds to focus on more important things.

Dictatorship

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.

Linkola believes a better solution can be found for our political system with a dictatorship. A leader with absolute power does not have to cater to popular opinion, and also is not bogged down by trying to gain a majority within a parliament. They can do what they believe is best, instead of what the people think they want at any given time. Many would oppose this, yet useless leaders are more often found in democracies than dictatorships.

A leader is an individual that brings a community into true consensus, and is furthermore able to guide and motivate them. A democratically elected person is rarely able to provide this, as they are chosen for their ability to appeal to individual desires. Under a democracy, people choose what they want, while under a dictatorship, the leader decides what is best. When people choose their leaders, they more often vote for that which pleasures them in the short term than what is best for them in the long term.

For Linkola the best leaders would be those who were not slaves to public approval, but instead did what was best for everyone. They would be inclined to observe the entire picture rather than attack what is immediately in front of them. As such they would not create false enemies, but instead hunt for an underlying problem that may not be immediately visible to others. This dictator would be willing to take harsh but necessary action when required, such as depopulating and restricting people. Democratically elected politicians would never do such things, as it would immediately get them kicked out of office, but a dictator is not bound by these types of concerns, and understands that such measures only help to preserve in the long term.

Pentti Linkola: A CORRUPT Perspective

In the current age there is often a very real sense that we are destroying everything around us. When the average Western person looks out their window, they behold a bleak picture. Where there used to be life flowing amongst the trees, grasslands, rivers and oceans, now there is pollution, concrete and rubbish. If one descends deeper, past the suburbs and cities, it is easy enough to see the current battle lines. In a few years, this will more than likely be another simple town, with simple people and problems. Linkola is one that asks us to stop in our tracks and truly think about where society is heading.

Firstly he asks us to take a serious look at the amount of consumption we engage in, and question whether this amount of destruction is possible for any serious length of time. Even now nature is making its presence felt in the form of diseases, natural disasters, and global warming. More importantly, it is clear that our basic resources are drying up and our air and water are contaminated. Continuing down this path will only lead to death for ourselves and much around us.

Furthermore he gives us cause to believe that there is no point in all this consumption. Underneath all these products we have been given a life that is safe, confined, and very much boring. Much of the personal satisfaction we existence in life comes when one has to struggle against forces outside and within oneself, yet with modernity this has been taken away. People can go to work, watch TV, and eat, but they never are forced to fight as their ancestors did. Linkola believes that this direction towards ease of life is fundamentally anti-human and against nature.

Linkola advocates a mass reduction in technology, and the abandonment of almost all that has been produced in at least the past 100 years. In many respects this is a sound idea. We don't really require televisions, modern pharmaceuticals, or mass production. However some technologies do retain the ability to be something more than basic entertainment or ease of life. We would seek to destroy much that serves no purpose, but assess some distinct technologies such as computers, and possibly machines for some menial tasks. Some of these can be used in a sane manner, in such a way that they do not ultimately harm our environment. Much of Linkola's political solutions revolve around the idea of a dictatorship, an individual that tells others what to do, banning anything that they deem not in line with these eco-laws. In many ways this is sound, for it puts reliance in a strong leader who is not commanded by mass appeal such as in democracy. Yet we envision leadership that doesn't rely so stringently on strict rulings and fear to ensure their community remains stable. People require some kind of empowered and authoratiative leadership that acts as a strong ruling force, but we feel their position can better be maintained through cultural consensus rather than through cohersion and fear. Furthermore these leaders should act within their locality, rather than operate from some capital far away.

With these in mind, we can utilise Linkola's ideas and develop a community that once again realises its place within nature, one that grasps onto the true hardships that exist in life and flourishes rather than wallow and call this evil. A society that sees no need to mass produce all manner of things that serve no purpose beyond simple entertainment and ease. By shrugging of the passing follies of the modern age, and finding meaning in things that are eternal. Through this, Linkola shows the greatness of nature.

But is there (still) something good in the species, as a part of the biosphere? - There are still individuals, who do deeds of compassion with the fullness of their hearts, among the church, health care and social posts. There are similar people in private life, good in the deepest sense of the word, who brighten and warm the whole human community around them - and who are not swayed by the "passing fancies of the world". All of them look after the close spheres of man, apply neighborly love. True greatness is encountered in only those few rare people, who broaden the protection and preservation over the whole of creation, the living layer of the globe. Amid the raging and clamoring rabble, among the frantically accelerating häkkinens and mäkinens, still a group of people sworn to environmentalism and guarding of life toss about. A part of them try to influence in clubs and unions, a part alone, each in their way. It is miraculous that this small and sane core of the people that can combine knowledge and emotion, still manages to try to preserve what is fair and good for as long as possible, is still able to emphasize patience among the enormous majority of fusses. But these people can tilt against the windmills; they cling to the last shreds of nature unraped by man, hang on to the last tatters of forest, try to delay the end, to give extra time for the biosphere, even if only for a second. These people still ponder, discuss, write, negotiate, attempt to compose conservation programs, Natura-programs - which then end up torn to pieces by the landlords' ignorant pack of beasts. It is the greatest wonder of the millennium's turn that there are still protectors; that still faith, hope and love burn within them.

Written by Matt C

Further reading

Pentti Linkola @ American Nihilist Underground Society

Pentti Linkola, "Could Life Win - And on What Conditions"

Pentti Linkola Fan Site

Pentti Linkola, "Humanflood"

Pentti Linkola, Interview, Turku, 10-2-2004