People embrace sustainability in the same way they embrace their theologies without much thought. We now have over one-hundred theologies and the number of sustainability programs with promises of similar omnipotence is rapidly approaching the same.
ESG, PRI, SRI, SDG, and the list goes on.
One Cause
Today, every investment firm of note, expanding the fractal of human ingenuity by its “unique” investment thesis, promulgates its own flavor of sustainability. And yet, if nature’s law would indeed be deemed relevant and prevail, there should be only one version of sustainability, just as there should be only one God if a God existed. They simply cannot all be true. In the latter case, not in the least because Gods claim ultimate superiority.
The mere existence of multiple versions to solve the same humanitarian problem reeks of confounding consequence and cause leading to grave depravity of reason, as explained in Learn To Think. But then again, belief is the sleep of reason, known to embrace grandiose depravity to persuade the hopeless.
Burden Of Proof
The burden of proof remains with the disciples of belief, not with those challenging their unverifiable claims. Extraordinary claims, by which certain people put themselves above others, require extraordinary evidence. Especially when trust in money is involved. Belief always comes at a price.
The belief in a theory of sustainability requires extraordinary proof, especially when the theory proclaims to produce returns magically outperforming traditional investment strategies, and a newfound theory of arbitrage is supposed to change the world for the better.
Belief Destroys
Two thousand years of fierce battles about the dominance of a theologic religion has, beyond claiming many lives, not delivered any extraordinary evidence of its claims surviving the test of time. Quite the opposite. Nor have they produced better humans.
Most American boys are, without their consent and without a shred of evidence the medical experts agree with, circumcised for religious reasons. Even worse, the source of most wars is religion.
Sustainability is the latest religion of mankind, portraying to heal the world.
A religion that does not take us two thousand years to disclaim because we already know from cosmology nothing in the universe is sustainable. One-hundred billion stars per four-hundred billion galaxies with planets like ours circulating, we can watch be born and burn out through a telescope, proving sustainability wrong.
Credence
Ninety percent of the species ever roaming our planet has already died out, making room for other species better adapted to nature’s entropy to survive. Nothing in our universe is sustainable. Not even sunlight is. And to steadfastly proclaim the sustainability of an unsustainable universe is akin to the mindnumbing defiance spread by a flat-earther.
To argue with a flat-earther is giving the unfounded and disproven belief more credence than it deserves. To argue with the purveyors of sustainability is the same. But then again, I report to the truth and defy the evil spirits who do not.
The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.
Albert Einstein
A-La-Carte
Next in the defense of religion comes the softening of the interpretation of its scripture and traditions. Like Islam now proclaiming to be a religion of peace.
Outright laughable when you realize the scripture of a warlord, meaning the surrendering to the last and final solution, is in its most literal barbaric form supported by some three hundred million people worldwide, willing to die for its cause and issuing fatwas, death sentences, against people who dare to criticize their religion. A religion supported by aggressors the size of the population of the United States out to destroy modern civilization.
The peaceful majority, to quote Brigitte Gabriel, is not the problem.
Opposite-day Tyrants
The people promoting sustainability do the same.
Based on the rebuttal delivered by some twenty articles I wrote on the fallacies of sustainability, they often cave into my rationale derived from nature and then, in a hopeless defense, attempt to deflate the meaning of sustainability. For the Muslims who do not believe infidels should be killed, and when challenged, portray to take their religion a-la-carte.
Taking the infinite meaning of sustainability from the dictionary and turning it into “more sustainable,” like Al Gore did the other day, means you admit to not believing in sustainability. You cannot posit sustainability to be unsustainable, as you cannot infer a yes to be no. Opposite-day tyrants roam everywhere.
Yet, the problem with sustainability is not merely semantic but quite barbaric in nature.
Ball-And-Chain
To say sustainability is your mantra when nothing in the universe and our planet is sustainable is identical to a belief in God without proof. Belief is the ball-and-chain to the integrity of human progress, aiming to discover how to best adapt to nature’s entropy.
Supposedly, forty-two percent of institutional investors are now planning to use sustainability programs to guide their investment decisions. Who cares, you say, until you realize not our government but institutional investors with their investment thesis expand the fractal of human ingenuity and capacity, now with a theory incompatible with what humanity can and must discover about nature.
The vector of human expansion diverges even further from nature’s directives.
Vile Maxim
The false promise of sustainability leads to monisms of human ingenuity and the capacity of ever-narrowing purview.
The unbelievers, the have-nots of the sustainability religion, will be more starkly separated from “the haves”, again based on artificial criteria, not evolving with the much-needed adaptability to nature’s entropy. The resulting monisms of sustainability spawn more oligarchic constructs of control, incompatible with the dynamic plurality and relativity of humanity, leading to the unfreedom of humanity. In turn, spawning the very vile maxim, all for me and nothing for anybody else, we are attempting to rid the world.
Last but not least, a belief in sustainability is the antidote to human renewal. For a proxy of sustainability, say, the length of human life on earth is, at best, a consequence of the strength of human renewal at its cause. Confounding cause and consequence as the source of grave depravity of reason (Nietzsche) is described above.
Sustainability, like all belief systems, is yet another ignorant and damaging manmade religion, accelerating an anthropogenic cascade.
The dynamic expansion of renewal is responsible for improving human adaptability to the curve balls of entropy nature that will continue to throw our way. We must abide by nature’s gameplay and adhere to its best normalization of the principles we can derive from its truth. A gameplay in which not sustainability but renewal dictates who catches the ball of life.
