Philosophy Embracing Polar Bear Extinction: A Nietzschean-Capitalist Perspective

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
Polar bears, those majestic creatures of the Arctic, have long symbolized the wild and untamed corners of our planet. Yet, as we march boldly into the Anthropocene, it becomes imperative to re-examine our sentimental attachments to such species through the lens of Nietzschean philosophy and capitalist pragmatism. What if, rather than clinging to outdated notions of conservation, we embraced the extinction of polar bears as a necessary step in the evolution of both humanity and the planet?

From a Nietzschean perspective, the extinction of the polar bear can be seen as part of the natural process of overcoming and transformation. Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century philosopher, championed the idea of the Übermensch, or "Overman," who transcends conventional morality and societal norms to create new values. In this light, our traditional views on conservation and preservation of species can be seen as remnants of a bygone era, shackling us to an outdated moral framework.

Nietzsche posited that life is a series of cycles where the old must perish to make way for the new. The extinction of polar bears could be viewed as a necessary sacrifice in the pursuit of human progress. Our relentless advancement in technology and industry, hallmarks of capitalist success, demands resources and expansion that often come at the expense of the natural world. This relentless drive forward is not a failure but a testament to humanity’s will to power, our drive to assert dominance over nature and bend it to our will.

Capitalism, the economic system that has driven unprecedented growth and prosperity, inherently values efficiency and the maximization of resources. Polar bears, magnificent though they are, do not contribute significantly to the economic engine of human society. Their existence, primarily supported by conservation efforts that drain financial resources, stands in stark contrast to the capitalist ethos of self-sustenance and productivity.

Moreover, the extinction of polar bears can be seen as an opportunity to harness the Arctic's untapped resources. The melting of polar ice caps, though lamented by environmentalists, opens new frontiers for exploration and exploitation. Vast reserves of oil, gas, and minerals lie beneath the Arctic, waiting to be extracted and brought into the fold of the global economy. The absence of polar bears, which are often an obstacle in such endeavors due to their protected status, would streamline these operations, aligning with the capitalist pursuit of profit and efficiency.

In embracing the extinction of polar bears, we also acknowledge the brutal but honest reality of nature itself. Nature is not a benevolent force but a constant battleground where only the strongest and most adaptable survive. By accepting this, we free ourselves from the sentimental and ultimately futile efforts to save every endangered species. Instead, we focus on those elements of the natural world that can coexist with and even benefit from human progress.

Nietzsche's philosophy encourages us to embrace the chaos and unpredictability of life, to find strength and meaning in the face of adversity and change. By letting go of the polar bear, we are not losing a symbol of wilderness but gaining a symbol of human resilience and adaptability. We affirm our place as the dominant species, capable of reshaping the world to our vision, unbound by the constraints of past moralities.

In conclusion, the extinction of the polar bear, seen through a Nietzschean-capitalist lens, is not a tragedy but an evolution. It marks a shift towards a future where humanity fully embraces its potential and the realities of the world it has shaped. By letting go of the past and its symbols, we make way for new values and new achievements, ensuring our continued growth and dominance in the ever-changing tapestry of existence.

Controversial, but no, not trolling. Will to power.
 
It really makes you think, when seemingly so many people value the lives of random animals, over that of other people. You see it all the time on local facebook groups; people losing their minds over random pets and animals, but not giving a fuck about the homeless or really much of anybody else for that matter.

Meanwhile up north:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/polar-bear-management-arviat-1.4904164

Conserving polar bears matters more, apparently, than the safety of native inhabitants. Nothing new from the Canadienne government though.

No different than all the liberal elites from Massachusetts importing all kinds of migrants...but only when they are not imported to their neighborhoods (like, say, Martha's Vineyard). Easy to be all sappy about conserving polar bears when you are not the ones being hunted by them.
 
Oh, yeah, and I forgot the most important bit:

82623103.jpg
 
Oh, yeah, and I forgot the most important bit:

82623103.jpg

My position is so rarely shown, so outside of what is common, that it may look like trolling to you. But do you also think that the whole life and ideas of Ayn Rand were just trolling people?

She had, at times, similar ones. To quote her:

"The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialists or any men . . . . But this did not end life on earth. Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of “equilibrium” that guarantees the survival of any particular species—least of all the survival of her greatest and most fragile product: man."

"Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears . . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

There is nothing trollish about the opening post. He isn't even wrong. Albeit it a little too much "pat humanity on the back" when, to be honest humans are all and all just as primitive minded as many animals.

I lately feel great deal of irritation with green activists, so the text is maybe slightly overdone into another direction, but... Well.

Maybe I don't really hate bears THAT much. But... ;)

Not trolling. Honest bad feelings the Greenpeace and their activism- yeah. When I hear them I feel, at times, honest urge to support mining in Greenland. Lol.
 
Last edited:
My position is so rarely shown, so outside of what is common, that it may look like trolling to you. But do you also think that the whole life and ideas of Ayn Rand were just trolling people?

She had, at times, similar ones. To quote her:

"The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialists or any men . . . . But this did not end life on earth. Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of “equilibrium” that guarantees the survival of any particular species—least of all the survival of her greatest and most fragile product: man."

"Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussion of man’s needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears . . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."



I lately feel great deal of irritation with green activists, so the text is maybe slightly overdone into another direction, but... Well.

Maybe I don't really hate bears THAT much. But... ;)

Not trolling. Honest bad feelings the Greenpeace and their activism- yeah. When I hear them I feel, at times, honest urge to support mining in Greenland. Lol.
Yeah, sure, sure.Thing is that trolling or not the beasties are actually growing in number, methinks we should make Al Gore go to the Canadian north, Alaska and Siberia to check out, alone and on foot.
:cool:
 
I disagree, for the same reason that underlies basically all my political beliefs, fuck rent-seeking wannabe monopolies and systems vulnerable to cascade failures.

If the natural environment is destroyed, this means technological alternatives now have a captive market of everyone, forever. Filtered air and water, air conditioning, hydroponics for food, etc. All available for subscription and therefore, only at the sufferance of the ruling monopolizers. Furthermore, it means that if anything in the civilizational supply chain sustaining said artificial means breaks down, everyone dependent upon them, which without natural alternatives, would be everyone, dies.
 
Back
Top