An Ecolife that has Proven to be Unliveable

Byron York has a piece at the Washington Examiner that is a must read. In it he exposes the lifestyle extreme environmentalists just like the ones meeting in Copenhagen want to force us to live. If the American people understood exactly what these environmentalists wanted for them they would run screaming from the environmental movement. Here’s a portion of York’s piece:

In the high desert of central Arizona, more than five thousand miles from the global-warming summit in Copenhagen, sits an aging and unfinished vision of the enviro-friendly, sustainable life that some climate change activists foresee for us all. It’s called Arcosanti, created in 1970 by the Italian architect Paolo Soleri, and it is the prototype of a green community of the future.

The only problem is, it doesn’t work. And it never did…

In a Soleri design, masses of people are packed into the small-footprint arcology so that the land surrounding the community can remain pristine, unpolluted by human touch. It was an idea much in fashion a few decades back. “As urban architecture, Arcosanti is probably the most important experiment undertaken in our lifetime,” wrote Newsweek in 1976.

Soleri designed models of many futuristic communities, guided by his intense dislike of U.S.-style development. “The ‘American Dream,’ as physically embodied in the single-family house,” he once wrote, “has to be scrapped and reinvented in terms which are coherent with the human and biospheric reality.”

York mentions in his piece that Soleri fell out of favor because his design flopped but that he has received a bit of a boost recently because of the climate change fraud that Al Gore and others have semi-successfully foisted on the world.

Environmental communists have gathered in Copenhagen to discuss how they want to restructure our lives. It doesn’t matter that we don’t approve of their ideas because, as far as these weirdos are concerned, they feel they have the right to do with us what they want, including disposing of those people they consider to be undesirable. Even Canada’s Financial Post has come out and demanded that every country follow China’s lead and establish a world-wide one-child policy.

It’s getting more that just a bit scary when a Western newspaper thinks it’s a good idea for the rest of the world emulate China’s one child policy rule. Already China has about 1.2 million more boys than girls, which is going to throw their culture and society out of whack. Imagine that taking place all over the world. Then imagine these out of whack societies being forced to live in tightly cramped eco-cities. The consequences would be catastrophic.

Update: Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot points out that the author of the Financial Post’s article recommending that the world adopt a one-child policy is a mother of two. So, this article could have been entitled, “One child policy for thee but not for me.”

Update II: Jonah Goldberg weighs in on Diane Francis’ world-wide one-child policy rule at The Corner:

Imagine if someone wrote an op-ed saying that we need a planetary ban on abortion. Feminists would get their dresses over their heads in outrage about such a naked assault on “reproductive freedom.” But here is a woman in a very prestigious Canadian newspaper arguing, in effect, that every country in the world should force women everywhere to have an abortion if they already have a child. Put aside, for a moment, the pro-life objections to this. Even if you think the unborn are really just a bunch of cells, mere “uterine contents” with no more moral import than fingernail clippings, how on earth can anyone believe in “reproductive freedom” and not be absolutely horrified by the police-state evil of such proposals?

Drill, baby, drill
Einstein and Climategate