Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Genghis Khan, History's Greenest Conqueror

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the taking-the-good-with-the-bad dept.

Earth 279

New research suggests that in addition to being one of history's cruelest conquerors, Genghis Khan may have been the greenest. It is estimated that the Mongol leader's invasions unintentionally scrubbed almost 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere. From the article: "Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world's total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests. In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan's unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere." I guess everyone has their good points.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


What? Outrageous! (3, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985816)

Someone should do something about these trees stealing all our carbon dioxides.

Stupid article (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986540)

The article is, of course, being stupid-- deliberately stupid, I expect, but still stupid.

The anthropogenic greenhouse effect was not a problem in the 13th century, and the the total amount of carbon dioxide that had been emitted by the entire human race at that point was trivial. To the extend that his conquests removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it was addressing a problem that didn't exist.

I will also point out that current carbon dioxide emission is about 30 billion tons per year. If the Mongols removed "700 million tons" of carbon from the atmosphere, then in the course of a century and a half of Mongol rule they accomplished the removal of an amount of carbon dioxide equal to about one week of modern emission.

Suggestion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986768)

Slaughtering 40 million of today's super-consumers would eliminate far more carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps the author is suggesting using a primitive means of dealing with a modern day problem?

Re:Suggestion? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987142)

You don't need to run around on horseback slaughtering people to reduce the population (or use guns). A fairly simple method was shown in the movies "I Am Legend", "28 Days Later", and "12 Monkeys".

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before a super-plague does come along, and probably not human-created either. Mother nature manages to come up with all kinds of amazing stuff on its own. We've already seen a few attempts at reducing our population just in the last decade or so: SARS, H1N1, etc. One of these days she's going to come up with something more contagious, and we're not going to be able to deal with it in time before it causes huge losses.

Re:Stupid article (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986838)

Well, no, but it raises an important point.

China is the world's worst polluter [bbc.co.uk] . Maybe we should be following the Great Khan's example?

(warning: the aforementioned is only slightly tongue-in-cheek; after all, China is home to some of the world's worst human rights abusers, a regime which runs on slave labor, zero environmental protection, and outright theft of IP from anyone stupid enough to do business with them).

Re:Stupid article (2, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987244)

I think it raises an even more important point than you have touched on:

The inherent genocidal madness of the modern "environmentalist" movement.

Think about it; This article actually tries to put a POSITIVE SPIN on GENOCIDE. I see this all the time from "greenies", who basically view all of humanity as somehow "unnatural" and a pox upon Mother Earth. They view humans as utterly expendable and particularly those humans who happen to disagree with their eco-religion. See the "No Pressure" [youtube.com] videos created by the eco-militant 10:10 group as a fairly recent example. It's a twisted and evil worldview and any sane reason-based person should reject it utterly.

Or, at the very least, demand that they avoid hypocrisy and off themselves first as an example to the rest of us.

Genghis was a greenie?! (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985826)

Glen Beck glares up at the sky. "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!"

Re:Genghis was a greenie?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986102)

WTF ? You destroy the world's greatest library (in Baghdad) be greenest. No wonder the conspiracy is very old !!!!!!

Beck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986626)

Glen Beck? Huh...I tried to look him up, but couldn't find anything out about him. Lots of information about another guy called Glenn Beck, though. But...that's probably just a coincidence.

Kahn? (4, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985848)

Genghis Kahn? Huh...I tried to look him up, but couldn't find anything out about him. Lots of information about another guy called Genghis Khan, though. But...that's probably just a coincidence.

probably too many Star Trek references on Google (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985930)

So, did Genghis or Genghis or any other Mongol contemporary use the Roman alphabet?

Re:probably too many Star Trek references on Googl (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986108)

Hard to say for other Mongols. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_writing_systems [wikipedia.org] the first time Mongolian had an "official" writing system of its own was when Genghis was about 42. And that was because Genghis conquered some neighbors and took a scribe prisoner....

There's no evidence that I can see that Genghis himself was literate. I'd suspect he wasn't. So I'd wager money that he did not use the Roman alphabet. ;)

Re:probably too many Star Trek references on Googl (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986124)

So, did Genghis or Genghis or any other Mongol contemporary use the Roman alphabet?

Nope. But they were still Mongols, not Mognols. Many many people, peoples and places have English names, even if they don't use them themselves. That goes double for the historical ones.

Re:probably too many Star Trek references on Googl (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987024)

So, did Genghis or Genghis or any other Mongol contemporary use the Roman alphabet?

Omniglot [omniglot.com] is your friend.

Re:Kahn? (3, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986600)

Genghis Kahn? Huh...I tried to look him up, but couldn't find anything out about him.

He worked at Borland. He was Phillipe's brother.

yep... (4, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985852)

I'm sure Al Gore will start up a pay-as-you-go Mongol Horde you can join if you really care about the environment any day now. Kill your neighbors, save a tree!

Re:yep... (1, Funny)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985988)

Careful, anytime I post something negative about Al Gore I get modded into oblivion and receive eleventymillion "just because he's a hypocrite doesn't mean he's a bad guy" comments.

Re:yep... (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986388)

Kill your neighbors, save a tree!

- hhmmmmm. I like the way you think.

Hold on, I have a park to save.

Re:yep... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986432)

I have a park to save.

yikes. Never those words have sound so imminent.

Some would like to do it again (2)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985854)

The nutjobs of course.

Re:Some would like to do it again (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986956)

The nutjobs of course.

A certain "Austrian Corporal" tried, but his war machine was too dependent upon petroleum, right up to the end, so that eliminates him.

How about the Black Plague? Shouldn't it be called the Green Plague?

WRONG !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34985868)

George W. Bush is.

Environmentalism = genocide? (4, Funny)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985882)

So, how long until environmentalists call for mass execution to reduce humanity's carbon footprint?

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (4, Informative)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985946)

They already do. Just not on the shows non-environmentalists watch, for the most part.

Environmentalists are sneaky (1)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987278)

I haven't seen any shows calling for slaughter---Kahn style. But I see your point.
Environmentalists are sneaky. For example: they start things like "corn to ethanol" for fueling cars and other things. So, everyone feels obliged to use all of the food for the cars. The governments kowtow to the pressure to supply ethanol. Then, there's no food and large populations starve. Then, the people on die off (probably the poorest are the first to go). Then, global warming solved.

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34985996)

Perhaps these stones were placed by environmentalists?


as long as you are one of the 500,000,000 (2)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987170)

Since the Georgia Guidestones call for keeping the population below 500,000,000 people, who gets to decide who lives or dies?

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986076)

as another poster pointed out, there are several Psycho-Environmentalist groups that call for the human race to voluntarily commit mass suicide to 'save the planet'.

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986222)

So...they need to start the trend

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986384)

Environmentalists tend to call for something a little less drastic: reducing the birth rate. One of the most effective, non-authoritarian means to do so is to improve a society's economy, but that has the side-effect of increasing resource consumption which tends to have a negative environmental impact.

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986740)

umm agenda 21 anyone?.... "Greed Steals from Green", plz don't scapegoat the enviro-concerned, cause the troubling calls for 'de-population' actually comes from a few filthy rich, and super sick fuckers, who for some reason have an insane and Insatiable desire for More Power... whatever or Whoever they mow down doesn't concern those folks. but a true environmentalist has a better heart than that, for it is our Love of Life that drives us. the 'eugenics crowd' is driven by a whole different set of ideals, try not to confuse the two groups...

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (4, Insightful)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986758)

We don't need anyone to call for a mass execution. People forget that most systems self-regulate. Like the bacteria in the petri dish we will - at some point - get to the edge of the dish and find there's no more resources left. At which point there will be a massive die off. There may well be some of us left over to start again. Or not. Who knows?

And to those of you that think we can terraform Mars or something and just ship out there - I call BS. We can't do the basics on THIS planet economically. What makes it likely that we'll be able to do so on another planet where everything is X (where X>1) times harder?

Re:Environmentalism = genocide? (2)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986938)

My approach is to suggest to anti-environmentalists a program to reduce population growth. It goes something like this...

Go fuck yourself.

not willing to die = anti-environmentalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34987332)

So, will you lead by example? Unless you kill someone or yourself, you aren't an environmentalist.

Smooth Move (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985884)

Way to go Mother Nature Network (MNN), you have tied Genghis Khan to environmentalism. Expect to see this quoted out of context on Fox.

What would you consider out of context? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986086)

I think you can accurately say that it was a really bad comparison to draw to begin with, to help people think more environmentally.

But how can you worry about a quote based on this being taken "out of context" when the whole of the context is in such poor taste? What honestly could Fox say that is really worse than what is being said?

I don't think it's fair to claim Fox is doing anything "out of context" when they simply report on a really bad idea someone had.

Re:What would you consider out of context? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986686)


Next up, Hitler and Stalin were the world's best environmentalists since they significantly reduced the carbon footprint of the German and Russian empires through their extermination policies.

Fertilizer (2)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985894)

Don't forget that battlegrounds tend to grow really well a couple of years after the bloodletting and mass burials. All those nutrients, don't'cha know.

Also had the first plastic bag tax (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34985914)

In fact, anyone caught with a plastic bag was burned as a witch as plastic hadn't been invented yet.

Genghis Khan == a polluter (4, Insightful)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985920)

the CO2 in Genghis Khan time's was not a pollutant but the methane that the 40 millions rotting corpses generated was.

Re: Genghis Khan == a polluter (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985962)

Yeah... I wonder if they brought those into account.

I really hope that tax dollars weren't used for this useless study. I mean, what useful insights can we glean from this study? That we should bring back the eugenics movement?

Re: Genghis Khan == a polluter (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986082)

I really hope that tax dollars weren't used for this useless study.

I am usually enthusiastic about funding seemingly useless studies (I use to be a researcher so I am biased) but at least they have to answer to an hypothesis or at least a question, here there seems to be none...

Re: Genghis Khan == a polluter (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986322)

The 40 million corpses were recycled as fertilizer in an ecologically friendly manner. The nutrients they had robbed from Mother Earth and defenseless plants have been returned to nature.

Re: Genghis Khan == a polluter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34987010)

Actually, the story reached from the second link addresses that point. Some large kill-offs of humans did not result in a net gain in greenhouse gas reductions since the periods of depopulation were not long enough for forests to grow.

Re: Genghis Khan == a polluter (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987248)

Well, according to one estimate [census.gov] the world population in 1200 AD was about 400 million, so 40 million represents about 10% of the world's population. Assuming they otherwise would have reproduced at the same rate as other people in the world, we could say that there would be about 10% more people living today without the Mongol invasion (super simplistic, whatever). So, current population would be about 7.6 billion instead of 6.9 billion. Assuming pollution scales directly with population (it probably doesn't), this means that Genghis Khan's actions back in the 13th century are currently saving approximately 3 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year (based on a total of ~30 billion tons from ye olde random website, no idea about the accuracy of the number).

Totally true (within an order of magnitude or two, anyway), but really pretty meaningless. Nobody is suggesting we should execute people in order to reduce emissions, but at the same time you can't really argue against the fact that killing off 10% of the planet's population would significantly reduce emissions (especially if you choose the correct 10%, but I'm pretty sure McDonalds et al have that covered). If you kill off 100% of the population, there would be absolutely no anthropogenic global warming (beyond what is already in motion). Genghis and the rest of the Mongols were just more successful at making a statistically significant dent in world population than anyone before or since (that I know of), so his "accomplishments" in that respect offer the most interesting (meaning most significant results) case study.

Proof (2)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985932)

It's a proof that the carbon craze has gone insane.

Re:Proof (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986340)

Maybe, but more likely it's just a phemomenon where every degree of separation from the original research brings a more sensational (and less accurate) headline.

In this case, you have a Slashdot post about an MSN article citing a "mongabay" article citing a press release announcing the research. I see no evidence anybody in that chain actually looked at the research paper.

Green? Really? (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#34985938)

Umm, thanks for playing, but your concept of "green" sucks. Sustainability, permaculture, whatever green -ism you care to mention all have a concept of utility at their core, where we are in fact trying to create good outcomes for people. We want more planetary goodness because it makes for a nice place to live. There are outliers, of course, but pretty much all sustainability thinking boils down to managing our lump of rock so it is interesting and safe and pleasant.

Killing everyone you find is not a useful route to "nice place to live".

Re:Green? Really? (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986386)

Well, I could argue that an earth with only 600 million inhabitants would be a nicer place to live in most ways.

It would require to eliminate 90% of population, and that wouldn't be a nice process nor a nice time to live in, but afterwards.... pretty much any sustainable process that can support 6 billion bodies in a nice way can also support 600 million bodies in a much, much nicer way.

Bad approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34985974)

I'm not sure if to liken mass genocide to ecological efforts is the best way to make green movements seem moderate.

I wish he was here now. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986028)

If he were here, he could march into the Middle East, tell those people what the deal is, exterminate those who didn't like it, and we'd have World Peace.

Yes, I firmly believe that.

Kids, that's how fascism starts.

Just say'in.

Exterminate the Middle East and we'd have World Peace.

This "humor" brought to you... (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986046)

...by the same people who brought you the "hilarious" No Pressure [youtube.com] video advocating a more personal approach to elimination of the un-believing infidel swine who don't ascribe to your exact brand of environmentalism.

Because it's just such a pleasant feeling to think of 40 million people hacked to death and then serving to fertilize our masters, the Trees.

I, for one, welcome our new Tree Overlords!

Re:This "humor" brought to you... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986528)

Careful SK, you come to close to the true nature of the Green/Red movement. This isn't about keeping the planet clean. It's about spreading a failed political system and giving power back to a few from the many. They'd happily kill millions if it meant that everyone did as they say. Of course their true masters, will then find them expendable too. Did anyone read the Terminator books and how the environmentalists were used to wipe out man? Scary to see the movement growing, is it not?

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

I've never heard such positive spin as this! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986176)

Well, sounds like we have should have the environment in mind when we go about killing everyone else. Let's not do it for god, country or "freedom" any longer. Let's do it for the environment.

Okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986192)

And this, folks, is why I have a hard time thinking that hardcore environmentalists have our best interests at heart.

Seriously??!!?? (1)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986200)

So according to this logic here are some of the greenest individuals of all time -

1 Genghis Khan 40 million
2 Stalin - 20 million-30 Million
3 - Adolf Hitler - ~ 15 Million
4 Pol Pot - ~ 1.75 million

Even Better, we can now rename the "Military Industrial Complex" as the "Carbon Sequestering De-Industrial Complex" or the "Green Clean Machine".
Next time you hear about how much money is being spent on the MIC, tell your congressman to double it! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Re:Seriously??!!?? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986920)

In his deference, those numbers were probably off a bit. Head counts are seldom proper in time of war. Just look at the numbers of dead VC during Viet Nam. I'd imagine Genghis' conscripts were killing thousands, maybe millions every day, perhaps every second and ol GK was more than happy to hear that and keep the story going.

It wasn't quite like Stalin's Gulag or Hitler's Concentration Camps where records of X number were killed at location Y.

Either way I think I'd have preferred vassalage, open trade routes and constant fear under a Khan than "normal" life under anyone else on that list.

Hitler was GREEN (2)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986250)

FTFA: [mongabay.com] "When the Mongol hordes invaded Asia, the Middle East, and Europe they left behind a massive body count, depopulating many regions. With less people, large swathes of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. "

Article on how Hitler was History's Second Greenest Conqueror for killing 11+ million people in 3... 2... 1... [wikipedia.org]

Oh? Not awards for Hitler today? But 11 to 17 million less people means less fields needed and more forests, right? Surely with entire towns wiped out they returned to nature [google.com] and helped the environment, right?

Spelling Issues- They DID Use the Roman Alphabet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986262)

"Genghis" is from Marco Polo and is based on Italian spelling conventions. Modern Mongolians prefer "Jenghiz Khan"

So how about Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin? (3, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986290)

Each of those dictators caused tens of millions of deaths ... why aren't they less "green" than Genghis Kahn? Did the article take into account the method of death used? I guess the Nazis used a lot of gas running the trains to the concentration camps, but what about Pol Pot or Stalin, who just starved tens of millions of people to death?

A better explanation is that this is a stupid article that makes no freaking sense.

Well then let's start with the author... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986326)

If mass slaughter of men, women and children is such a 'good point' then let's start with the author of this article and all the other Green(Communist) wack-jobs out there still pushing for AGW. (Oh, wait, now it's climate change.) I suppose the next story will tell us how wonderful Hitler, Russia and Mao were for the millions that they slaughtered. This is completely SICK!

      If these people really believe the stuff their promoting then, they should be happy to volunteer for the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [vhemt.org] as locke2005 points out.

Depopulation over such a large swathe of land (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986436)

This is what Al Gore wants to do to the world. This is what Greens celebrate. Death! Destruction!

Yep, you can verify the story yourself in simulat. (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986518)

I just finished the Civ 5 Mongol Scenario a few hours ago, which, as some of you know, is as accurate a simulation of the Genghis Khan conquests as a civ-based strategy game can be, which is damn more accurate than, say, any platform game I can think of.
So, I can verify, re-enacting the whole Khan campaign, I did get the feeling of bliss after my efforts for intensive de-population and re-forestation were on their way. As I was reducing large cities to rumble and burning the population (to avoid their long term unhappiness - I told you Civ 5 is accurate), I would find real pleasure in contemplating the good I was doing for the planet, by replenishing its oxygen reserves, and exterminating the humans (at least the AI controlled ones) that is plaguing the earth...

What about Colonel Green? (1)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986534)

Granted, he killed slightly less than Khan, but now that he has Lincoln and Surak to back him up...

Re:What about Colonel Green? (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987086)

Granted, he killed slightly less than Khan, but now that he has Lincoln and Surak to back him up...

What? Lincoln and Surak fought against Colonel Green. Hand in your geek card, now!

Looking on the bright side of life... (1)

khr (708262) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986542)

I'll bet many of his victims sang the song while dying... "Look on the bright side of life" about the good they were doing to the environment...

cruelest conqueror? (1)

lostros (260405) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986624)

I've always felt Genghis got a bad rap as a cruel conqueror. Did he commit acts of intense barbarity? Yes. But considering the amount of land slaughtered, the number of people killed by him was surprisingly low, the fear enticed many people to surrender without a fight, and life in the horde was almost always an improvement over the old ways. He was tolerant of any religion, made trade flow, and implemented fair laws. Killing everyone taller than the handle of an ox cart is certainly shocking, but for some reason killing more people in the traditional way, and then oppressing them is merciful and just.

Told ya so! (2)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986636)

Yet when I presented my "Bring Genghis Khan Back" idea at Kyoto, they threw me out of the building.

Who's laughing now, huh?

that is nothing (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986662)

compared to Hitler Stalin Mao Che and the like.

Left are ecstatic about a strong man on the top. Now these dear leaders are also green! Oh My Fucking God.

Green Movement == Kill Yourself (2, Insightful)

RJBeery (956252) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986812)

Nothing illustrates the connection between being "anti-human" and being "green" more than this story. No matter what thoughtful precautions you can take to preserve Nature, the better alternative is that you never existed at all. In other words, kill yourself so that the world may remain a pleasant place for the animals. :)

Re:Green Movement == Kill Yourself (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987140)

I don't think being green has to be the same thing as being anti-human. Just respecting that the planet's resources aren't infinite and there isn't some great cosmic garbage collector who will turn the trash you dump into gold. Reducing how much waste we produce is a "green" action, yet I don't think my use of a reusable Nalgene water bottle over thousands of disposable plastic bottles is in any way anti-human. I do agree that some people take it to the extreme and would slice humanity off the planet if they could, but not everyone who tries to be "green" is a "green fundamentalist."

C&H (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34986892)

How many boards could the mongols hoard if the mongol hoards got bored?

except.... (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 2 years ago | (#34986946)

except that his armies would also release additional CO2 into the atmosphere...from you know...exerting themselves from all that killing...not to mention horses do eat grass, though they probably don't release as much CO2 and methane as a cow...I'm sure it's not 0%.
they probably cut down plenty of trees for firewood along the way too.

Yeah, pretty much (2)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987104)

This is funny, but it focuses on a revelation I've had about this whole "green" thing going on. By and far, it's a marketing term. It's something to slap on a product to help it sell. Maybe it didn't start that way. Maybe it has true roots and it's merely been co-opted by the marketing weasels. That's their job after all.

But the "greenest" thing to do is to not buy the god-damned thing. Or, by an extreme extrapolation, mass genocide. My wife tries to be a "green" consumer, yet we got a giant-ass TV to replace the free big-ass CRT that a friend gave us. And we've now got this water saving thing that can half-flush. But this thing cost $30. I'm certain that spending that $30 to save a few cents on water every month isn't economical. But I'm really not sure it's even environmentally sound.

So anyway, my argument is that we need some sort of empirical measurement for how polluting a product is. If it costs money, it's polluting if you follow the money back far enough. With that we could step away from this bullshit "green" label, and focus on the efficiency of whatever it is we're getting. To get real meaningful work out of our gizmos and services, and the lowest cost, with the least pollution. But maybe I'm just daydreaming.

I call shenanigans! (0)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#34987108)

What, so Genghis would rather kill a few thousand people so he can drive his SUV without causing a carbon footprint for a month? What a load of fecal matter!

Genocide and mass murder are NOT GREEN, even if there is a net reduction in carbon dioxide production, it's NOT green. Does that cretin now think we should idolize the likes of the Stalin, Hitler, Jim Jones, Pol Pot, and other monsters in human form? Maybe we should just fix the anthropomorphic carbon dioxide issue by nuking all population centers to cause the extinction of humanity...

As to the study, how stupid do you have to be to not realize that a population reduction (by any means) of a carbon dioxide spewing fire using creature will result in a reduction in the creation/release of carbon dioxide by said life forms.

I hope this lady (Julia Pongratz, lead researcher on this) doesn't even win an Ig Nobel award or mention.

I wonder if she's the research version of a troll. My advice, put on your asbestos undies lady, cause the flames are rising.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account