Climate change, as well as posited solutions, is arguably an increasing political problem and therefore relevant to study for the political scientist. Solutions may entail problems in themselves.Finnish ecologist Pentti Linkola has argued that humankinds’ only hope of survival is reducing the population greatly by large-scale, state-organized killings, and further dismantling of what has grown fundamental to many modern societies, such as democracy or private economic freedom.What happens to human rights if such a proposal is realized? In this thesis, Linkolas’ arguments are put against scholars believing that human rights are fundamental and inviolable parts of being human. The aim is to unveil the underlying ideas of Linkola, and analyze how his argumentation dismisses human rights. A broader aim is to see if these ideas can be connected to the ideology of ecofacism as it manifests today.This thesis answers two research questions:- In what way does Pentti Linkolas’ argumentation in Can life prevail? (2009) contradict an idea of human rights as given?- What may the underlying ideas behind this contradiction be?Results show that arguments of Linkola not only dismisses, but deem ideas of human rights dangerous for human survival.

I denna idéanalytiska och jämförande fallstudien kommer fyra samtida högerextrema manifest att analyseras för att utröna vilka bakomliggande idéer respektive författare ger uttryck för. Till grund för denna analys kommer ideologin ekofascism användas för att utröna ifall deras innehåll överensstämmer med denna ideologi. Därutöver kommer eventuella likheter och skillnader mellan manifesten presenteras. Ett analytiskt ramverk för ekofascism kommer att operationaliseras utifrån skrifter från två filosofer, Pentti Linkola och Savitri Devi. Detta ramverk kommer sedermera appliceras tematiskt på de valda manifesten för att besvara de uppställda frågeställningar. Manifesten har valts för att möjliggöra en komparation över tid, då det första manifestet var skrivet 1995, det andra 2007, och de tre sista 2019. Uppsatsens viktigaste slutsats är att det skett ett idémässigt förskjutande över tid från de två första manifesten till de tre sista, där dessa kännetecknas av rasistiska och/eller antisemitiska tankegångar. Slutligen fann uppsatsen att i alla manifest, bortsett från Kaczynskis, var eventuella eko-tankegångar underordnade andra problemområden som dess författare identifierat.

The subject-matter of the following essay is to investigate the relationship between what is commonly called Deep Ecology or Biocentric Philosophy, as articulated by the co-founder of the Deep Ecology Movement, Arne Naess, and later proponents of the biocentric school of environmentalist thought. I contrast Naess’ concept of Self-realization as founded in his Ecosophy T to the ideas of american conservationist and co-founder of the radical green movement Earth First! Dave Foreman, and to the controversial finnish environmentalist and ecofascist Pentti Linkola’s ideological agenda of population-reduction respectively. According to some critics of the movement, especially the social ecologist Murray Bookchin and French liberal philosopher Luc Ferry, the Deep Ecology ideology is essentially misanthropic and totalitarian in structure. A central idea among deep ecologists is that ecosystems and natural entities have intrinsic value in themselves, even outside a human social context. This idea is thought of among deep ecologists to create a philosophically sound basis for counteracting the environmental global crisis. Both Bookchin and Ferry argue that this idea reduces the role of human reason and ethics in a fundamental way, especially in relation to questions concerning population-growth control. My aim is to show that the original intention of Arne Naess in his philosophy (Ekosofi T) does not resemble either Ferrys focus of critique, neither the controversial statements made by Dave Foreman and Earth First! nor Linkolas population-control agenda.