What is this section about? Well, it's not really about being gay. It's about being human instead, so it applies equally to everyone.
Over the years, I've slowly come to appreciate how fragile nature is. The one thing that threatens that fragility more than any other is the evil known as 'economic rationalism'. And to be quite honest, nature and economic rationalism cannot co-exist on the same planet.
Economic rationalism is the 'science' that the economy is the most important thing on the planet. In the economic rationalism model of life, all things "work" when the economy is in good shape. What should immediately be apparent is that no economist who has come up with an "economic model" of the future has been able to successfully apply it to how things have happened before. So anthropomorphising of the economy, giving it sentience and a knowledge of "what is right" or "what will work" is particularly disturbing. In actual fact it's little more than a justification for the statement "greed is good". And greed is not good.
Under economic rationalism, the environment does not rate a concern. So power stations are run at "economically rational" models of production that guarantee best cost savings but at the cost of them running in such a way that the do the worst possible damage to the environment. And that's just one example.
The economic rationalist, to be quite simple, considers the environment and nature overall to be unimportant since the cost will be born by another generation.
The economic rationalist, to be quite simple, doesn't give a fuck about the planet as long as he or she is rich.
If steps are not taken soon to halt the spread of this disease known as economic rationalism, we will find ourselves in a situation where we either destroy or are rejected by this planet. So next time someone says to you that something is "good for the economy", laugh at them. Scorn them. Mock and ridicule them. Stop them.
The cowardly, disgusting Australian Liberal Federal Government has used economic rationalism as a method to justify increasing greenhouse emisions when it is well known that they have to be decreased as rapidly as possible in order to have a chance of saving the environment. However, this sort of action is not good for the economy.
My arguments here probably make me sound a bit too radical. Maybe I am but unless something is done soon, we'll be in dire straits indeed.
What good is a healthy economy if everyone is dead?
(C) 1996-2000 Preston de Guise