A man in Ladysmith, B.C. has become so fearful that climate change is going to kill him that he has gone to a doctor seeking medically-assisted suicide. We probably shouldn’t laugh but we’re going to anyway. Especially since he’s an activist with Extinction Rebellion and he doesn’t seem to grasp the irony. And if he succeeds in bringing about his own extinction to rebel against a non-existent trend towards increasing climate-related deaths, we will not be made to feel guilty because we have done our part, as have you, our many supporters, to get the message out that climate change is not a catastrophe, despite what the alarmist death cults would have us believe.
The Epoch Times reports that “According to a recent article in Vice magazine, in 2017 the man’s doctor diagnosed him with eco-anxiety and biosphere-related depression. He told Vice his condition had become ‘debilitating.’” Despite which some heartless bureaucrat turned down his February 2021 request to be euthanized. But since Bill C-7 a month later made mental illness acceptable grounds for getting snuffed as of March 2023, he reapplied and is battling on, however debilitated.
Of course he may still have problems getting agreement, if he wants to argue that his fear is rational. There’s a bit of a Catch-22 here (the original of which in Heller’s eponymous novel, you may recall, was that you could only be excused flying terribly dangerous combat missions if you were insane, but not wanting to fly them proved you were sane). For instance, if his purpose in taking his own life is to make a powerful statement about climate change, then it’s arguably a rational act and he’s not excused living on grounds of insanity. Likewise, a determined campaign to get dead strongly suggests that he’s not debilitated.
This odd episode may really be about the conditions under which we assist a person in succumbing to despair generally rather than the particular condition that is or is not proof of a debilitating mental illness. But part of the question is whether it is crazy to think climate change poses an existential danger in the face of which life is not worth living. If so, he’s not of sound mind and can’t make decisions. If not, he is and can’t make this one.
Of course if you are inclined to argue that accepting the Extinction Rebellion ideology is ipso facto proof that your mind is not working properly, we’re inclined to agree. And suggest you get help so you can live a happy life until death comes in its own time.
I always find it rather interesting that those who claim that the human race is a cancer upon Gaia, or who claim that the only way to achieve a zero-emission state is to remove most if not all of the human race, rarely seem to want to lead the way by doing away with themselves. Somehow it's always everybody else who is the problem.
There have to be tall buildings or bridges over rocky gorges where he lives, assuming he doesn't care what he looks like after he saves the rest of us the cost of doing himself in.
For the nth time and with continued due deference, stop using the phrase climate change. The climate is simply not changing, ergo there is no crisis, so do not give ammunitions to the climate nutters by continually using this phrase. Heed Mr. Robson what I just wrote, i.e. don´t be like the CBC, etc. .
Your logic holds unless he really doesn't want to go through with his own extinction but instead is intent on maximizing publicity while minimizing his extinction and then his questionable rationality is at least understandable.
Either way, CAGW hysteria has been the most effective modern tool in lobotomizing the masses and empowering sociopaths in their pursuit of grander tyranny.
Roger, I have often noticed the same trend among white, able-bodied men who champion preferential policies for disabled women of colour. It is an essential characteristic of the social justice warrior mentality.
It is increasingly difficult to understand the mindset of a population that has lived through decades of climate propaganda, starting with a coming ice age, changed to warming because it wasn't cooling, then to climate change because it wasn't warming and covers any change or weather to support the intended story. Why do people not question and doubt those who propagate such agendas and continue to believe a biased media and activists?
The reason I don't use climate change is because the CAGW hysteria crowd want us to use it because climate change (over a geological time frame) is "undeniable". Whether anything man can do in the way of CO2 emissions that can actually affect climate in a material way is uncertain but there is an industrial complex-level of rent seeking bounty and sate coercion premised on its presumed certainty.
Perhaps we adopt “weather change” as I’ve heard that it is changeable.
Dr. Charles Capaday,
I think it is a good and honest thing to do, calling it climate change. However, it is critical to assert and draw attention to the ludicrous claims made by fanatic activists that "climate change" is somehow a real threat to humanity and must be stopped. This is like claiming water is wet and we all must strive toward making it dry before someone gets wet and drowns in the stuff. Water is wet, we had nothing to do with it, get over it. The climate has been in constant change since the atmosphere arrived over 3.8 billion years ago and water has been wet since...well...water was liquid.
Having said that, I like your point about the CBC. Here in Montreal, they have gone off the deep end of woke, to the point where EVERYTHING is climate change related. The killer for me is listening to the morning rush-hour traffic reports. They actually think it crucial to report on the volume of bikes on the bike paths!