Thread by @Cobretata

I love the blithe assertion in that NYT article that environmentalists wanting to reduce the human population is a "conservative talking point." They CONSTANTLY talk that way. They've terrorized a generation of followers into not having children because of climate change.

One segment of the NYT article swerves into the truth: the major reason genocidal Malthusian environmentalists are such popular movie villains is that environmentalism is the only positive trait Hollywood screenwriters can think to give their baddies to make them "nuanced."

This is done even when it doesn't make a lick of logical sense, as with Thanos. Wiping out half the population of the UNIVERSE as a "solution" to overpopulation is dumber than a box of rocks, not least because the most heavily populated places would quickly repopulate.

But the screenwriters needed a way to make Thanos seem righteous, if twisted, to give him depth and explain why he has so many fanatical followers - so boom, he becomes a radical environmentalist. It's the only modern or futuristic religious crusade Hollywood can think of.

Eco-villains also give the screenwriters a way to thumb their noses at the audience. Yeah, the villain of our story went too far, but it's really your fault for driving him nuts with your Earth-destroying lifestyle.

Notice how nobody challenges Thanos' premise in the Avengers films. He gives his little soliloquy about the overcrowded universe without a peep of protest from the alleged geniuses he is addressing. They only disagree with his methods.

For the most part, Hollywood writers don't think they're discrediting radical environmentalism by unleashing a horde of eco-villains in their scripts. They think they're giving us cautionary tales about how we'll create monsters if we don't change our ways. /end