Talk:Pentti Linkola

I seem to recall that either the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal reported that Linkola supports genocide in order to reduce human population to what he considers acceptable levels. Is that correct? Michael Hardy 01:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My impression is that although Linkola has said as his opinion that genocide may work as a means to control overpopulation, he has never actually encouraged anybody to kill anyone. I don't think genocide is mentioned in his "plan of action" that he describes in his latest book, either. Must check.

I'm really planning to update this Linkola page asap, but have been avoiding it mainly out of lazyness but also because I don't seem to find a way to describe the apparent contradiction between his seemingly empathetic and humane character and his cruel ideas. Maybe he's just a bit too much a guru for me, too. Habiibi 20 April 2006

I found some of his quotes about the promotion of genocide: http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/penaintr.htm

A bit off topic, but I'm seriously amazed people follow such a horrible human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.134.125 (talk • contribs)

I'm amazed that we're up to 6 billion, on the verge of committing ecocide, and still overbreeding, but each to his own.

--220.236.238.103

"Ecocide"? lmao -69.47.186.226 05:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The link to his fansite (the website people who want to abolish all technology developed in the last century!) should be enough to convince any decent person that Pentti Linkola is profoundly evil. He's probably too old to be the next Hitler, but he may be the next Hitler's inspiration and object of worship. Michael Hardy 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with claims that he lives according to his own principles. The quickest and easiest way he could decrease the population of the world would be to kill himself and stop consuming the Earth's natural resources. Should he desire to rectify his hypocrisy, I suggest he end his own life, and the quicker, the better. -69.47.186.226 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've understood that Linkola considers himself to be too important to the environmentalist debate to commit suicide. And on the other hand, he has only applauded deaths of those he doesn't consider important for the community. As he is himself spreading radical environmentalist ideas, he should, according to his own philosophy, be one of the more worthy to live. 62.78.227.13 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Profoundly evil? Haha. This is exactly the kind of tripe that Pentti Linkola is against. Let me guess, you are of European descent but are using an ancient Jewish belief in order to justify and make judgements upon other peoples' philosophies? Wake up and smell the roses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.51.29 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not only ancient Jews who say that murder is wrong. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Murder it self is not "wrong", it can never be "wrong", only the context in which it is committed can be called "wrong" (and that's just based on a point of view). Calling murder in it self wrong is like calling death unnatural. You murder and/or benefit from murder of other creatures everyday to stay alive yourself, you pretentious "moral" hypocrite --93.95.76.13 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I've uploaded a photo of Linkola in the Commons but I leave it for others to decide if its too low quality to be included here. Nikke 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the picture. It adds to the value of article and the quality in my opinion is good enough. Habiibi 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations and Style

I think we really need some citations here. I just tagged article "unreferenced".

I also think the style in many places is poor and unscientific. Sure he is a sociable person and has been described as a good conversationist and having a good sense of humour but maybe we could describe this some other way than saying that "he has many friends"? Habiibi 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV

Saying Linkola has been accused of ecofascism has the very clear implication that this system of thought is in some way criminal or verifiably wrong. I consider such an implication repugnant.

--220.236.238.103 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's factually correct that someone is accusing him of that, that doesn't imply he's guilty. I do think, however, that it's best to say who is accusing him. Besides, I don't think there's any criminal code that defines an offense called "ecofascism". Genocide, on the other hand, is a criminal offense. Michael Hardy 03:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see why it needs to be phrased in terms of "some have accused": the "eco-" and "-fascism" parts of the word are very well-defined, and I would further claim, verifiably applicable. Fascism: I quote from Merriam-Webster, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)...that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition". So...I'll repeat myself: I don't see why it needs to be phrased in terms of "some have accused". It can be put more simply, e.g., "Linkola is an ecofascist". -69.47.186.226 05:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. -- Atamasama 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One isn't usually "accused" of being e.g. liberal or democrat so I guess Linkola is only claimed to be an ecofascist, not accused (although individual reader might consider such claims as serious and derogating accusations). I recall that Linkola has also commented on being labelled as such in some interview, can't however remember anything more specific. 62.78.227.13 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)