Came across a few environmental sites that praised Khanâs lengthly invasion and death rate (40 million!) as a positive for the earth. My jaw dropped. Seriously 
Though the Khan will remain known as Genghis the Destroyer and not Genghis the Green, Dr Pongratz hopes that her research will lead to future historians examining environmental impact
Well Gates - get on with the deadly virus 
eh? (sarcasm) A few billion wiped out on purpose and thereâd be âGreen Gatesâ or âKool-earth Kimmyâ (N Korean despot)
Itâs writing stupid shit like that, in that way, that (IMO) is fucked up.
1 Like
Old News.
That claim has been around for ages. IE that the conquests of Genghis Khan were good for the environment. I guess it depends it depends on oneâs point of view:
In the pre industrial age, the khan removed all human beings from a vast area. I think not having human beings for around for a century or so would have certainly have been a good thing for the local ecology.
If you havenât seen it, I recommend the documentary series âLife After Peopleâ. I think the link below is the the original documentary.
Ffs, I look forward to her paper extolling the Holocaust as Hitlerâs green programme to help tackle the human population explosion.
Oh dear, Godwinâs law, instead of addressing the claim?.(also a strawman)
Looking at the time and place, I think the my claim is clearly trueâŚ
Genghis Khan lived in the thirteenth century, in a preindustrial world. Have a look at his empire on a map.
I suspect he may never have considered the environmental effects of his conquests any more than did Julius Caesar or any other ruthless conqueror. Surely itâs only a matter of degree?
It is not my intention to mount a mortal justification of war. With Genghis Khan there were unintended long term benefits to the environment. Not to vast numbers of people of course, what with having been slaughtered and all.
I consider war a great evil, which can rarely be morally justified. However, humans being have been fighting each other in groups pretty much for as long as there have been humans. This leads me to suspect war may have some evolutionary advantage. On the other hand, our innate violence may be a vestigial evolutionary trait for all I know.
A genuine misanthrope, it is my opinion that humans going extinct will greatly benefit the planet. Due to our capacity for self destruction, I think itâs unlikely homo sapiens will become an old species.
In the clip I linked itâs claimed that all traces of human beings would be eliminated in a million years. Not long at all in geological terms.
The accusation of Goodwinâs law is a bit lazy, and disingenuous, since the comparison was based solely on the concept that both committed atrocities that might indirectly be perceived as helping the environment. Which is what was asserted about Khan in the OP, so I donât see any straw man either sorry?
I was also responding to the OP, not your post, though I failed to make that clear. So any confusion arising from that I apologise for.
1 Like
Apology unnecessary.
I was not being deliberately insincere. My apologies if it read that way.
1 Like
Exactly. If Hitler had about an extra 15 years ruler ship he most likely would have surpassed the 40 million mark - however, WW 2 had 75 million as a worldwide death toll. Perhaps weâre failing to just allow the destroyed places to be overtaken by nature?
Maybe the next time a country starves itâs people or bombs a city we should just sit back 
do nothing and let the locals die and nature take hold.
North Korea most likely has the lowest carbon footprint in the world. Perhaps they absorb tonnes of carbon! Theyâve learnt to live with next to nothing - so can we! Kimmy needs to get an environmental publicist to âclean upâ his world image.
1 Like
Ah, been helping my 82 year old mother move home, with my disabled niece this week, so my brain is a bit fried.
Luckily theyâre both in and happy, so just some small stuff to move around now.
Iâm never moving from my house, unless I win the lottery, and can just set fire to all my crapâŚ
In every tale of horror and atrocities, one can find stories that are positive. Be it the child who perseveres and survives to the soldier who did something glorious and heroic. But those outliers are not the true story, it is still one of horror.
The other day I watched a video of a Trumpite who rationalized that slavery was good for the blacks, because their descendants eventually benefited from the freedoms in the USA.
At 2:00
1 Like
Actually there was a Chinese pirate who was just as bad⌠Zheng Yi Sao, Probably the most successful pirate the world has ever known.
Iâm going to look it up - but is that famous pirate a woman? 
There was one who wasâŚ. Off I go.
1 Like
FUCK YA!!! Whooop whoooop. I knew it. Iâm familiar with her but itâs been a few years and I couldnât remember the name.
My oldest was soooo impresssed. This pirate is his favorite.
You will need to remind him that it was the Christians who first had equal rights for women. The whole idea of womenâs equality is a Christian thing.
1 Like
eh? (sarcasm) A few billion wiped out on purpose and thereâd be âGreen Gatesâ or âKool-earth Kimmyâ (N Korean despot)
There was one who wasâŚ. Off I go.