Pentti Linkola

[Anonymous No.17543060]

Should i try reading his work and what are /lit/ opinions on him?

[Anonymous No.17543326]

>>17543060

[Anonymous No.17543339]

Cats suck

[Anonymous No.17544190]

>try reading
Linkola isn't a hard read at all. I'd say don't bother unless you really want to read the rambles of a fisherman about Finnish forests. There is no actual analysis in his writings. If you haven't read Ted K, then he is definitely the better EDGY ANTI TECH ANPRIM BASED HAHA author. that beign said, ted doesn't really go as deep as other authors do

[Anonymous No.17544457]

>>17543060
Yes, it's not a huge investment either. Can Life Prevail? is just a compilation of essays.
>>17544190
>ted doesn't really go as deep as other authors do
Yes because ISAIF (specifically) was written for a general audience, not anprim neet incels. Pretty sure Ted says throughout the manifesto (and his later writings) that people should turn to Ellul for a more comprehensive ideological rundown.

[Anonymous No.17544535]

>>17544457
i mostly like his love for nature for being a strong speaker for ecological issues, tho i don't agree with all of his anprim type stuff and like dictatorship and praising of terrorist.

[Anonymous No.17544547]

>>17544535
Well everything he says makes perfect sense if your SINGULAR goal is environmental preservation. I obviously care about environmental destruction but I don't think we need to go as hard as he suggested (though automation + overpopulation would need to be addressed firmly).

[Anonymous No.17544604]

love birds, hate cats. simple as

[Anonymous No.17544625]

>>17543060
this guy looks faggy

[Anonymous No.17544658]

>>17544604
>>17543339
Love birds, love cats, hate human beings.
Cats wouldn't have been a problem if it weren't for human beings.
Human beings are the causal source of the issue. Any human attempt to "better" things results in things becoming worse. Only extinction of the human species can result in long-term betterment.

[Anonymous No.17544664]

>>17544190
>EDGY ANTI TECH ANPRIM BASED HAHA author
Give me a list of these and I'll read them.

[Anonymous No.17545185]

>>17543339
>>17544604
>>17544658
cats permanently kept inside are fine

[Anonymous No.17545194]

>>17545185
Not for the cat

[Anonymous No.17545200]

>>17544190
I dont agree with him on many things but its interesting and pretty funny to read

[Anonymous No.17545313]

>>17545185
I agree, but I would prefer creating facilities to spay and neuter cats and making them go peacefully extinct. I don't like killing them outright because it involves mankind ignoring its accountability for causing the problem.
>>17545194
Cats are bad for native biodiversity. While I love cats, we have to acknowledge this problem. I don't want a bloody "solution", that's all.

[Anonymous No.17545372]

>>17545313
No I agree, my point was just that there is no good solution for both the cat and nature and that we should stop having cats as pets.

[Anonymous No.17545451]

>>17545372
I agree that we should ban further breeding of cats and create facilities where strays and ferals are sterilized and can peacefully live the last days of their lives.

[Anonymous No.17545570]

>>17545451
this would be good but normies wont agree in a trillion years so Im more into the thought of inside cat

[Anonymous No.17545620]

>>17545570
I agree keeping cats strictly indoors is necessary, but it is not sufficient for the issue. I don't agree with Australia's approach of outright killing cats, which many normies against. If you can use good rhetoric, you can convince normies to put billions of dollars into "peaceful extinction facilities" for cats. Makes sense to put 500 billion dollars into this rather than nignog communities.

[Anonymous No.17545665]

We should use gene drives to control wild populations.

I don't particularly care about cats killing pigeons and rodents where I live - it's part of how those populations are kept in check.

[Anonymous No.17545666]

>>17543060
IRL Snufkin

[Anonymous No.17545725]

Earth sucks for conservatism. Most species were extinct before humans were around and that'll always be the case because nature isn't conservationist. Climate will change no matter what. Land drift will introduce invasive species to foreign environments no matter what. Natural disasters will harm some species and give a leg up to others no matter what. Extinction is part of evolution.

If we trully cared to preserve some ecosystem or another, creating artificial bubbles for those is the most logical, secure way to go about it.

[Anonymous No.17545882]

>>17545725
Birds are pretty important to ecosystems and having them die in massive numbers is dangerous. Also, they are pretty intelligent and it's not good to put them through that suffering.
>>17545665
There are native cats (e.g., lynxes) but domestic cats are invasive. However, human beings deserve more of the blame for creating these complications in the first place.