The Illuminati Project Pushes For Dark Skies In 2009 315
An anonymous reader writes "2009 is the 400th anniversary of Galileo's observations of Venus, Saturn and Jupiter published in Sidereus Nuncius ('Starry Messenger'). To improve scientific literacy, the NOAO and NASA are promoting dark-sky initiatives in 2009 to draw attention to the problem of light pollution which obscures nearly all night sky colors and objects except for the moon and a few bright stars and planets. Project Illuminati is a Flickr project by James Cann to showcase the beauty of light pollution to raise awareness and educate fellow Earthmates to lower energy consumption and become more curious about our place in the universe."
I am confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are trying to promote dark skies (which of course show some amazing celestial bodies) by showing how pretty of a red sky light pollution makes???
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of things people can do to stop light pollution without increasing risks.
The easiest example I remember is streetlights that use cones to direct the light at the ground instead of letting it escape every direction including up into the sky. The amount of light we have on the ground remains the same and light pollution is noticeably reduced by this simple example.
Thanks for making me waste a mod point by replying to your knee-jerk response.
- I'm also confused by their campaign choice, let's stop light pollution cause it's so.. beautiful!
Re:Simple Example (Score:5, Interesting)
In order for the light to remain the same, you'd probably have to reduce the power to the lamp.
Re:Simple Example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple Example (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh, wasting a good thread for modding by replying to this but since no one else has I'll bite.
Why legislate? If the lamps were cost effective, then the municipalities would make the switch. Right now in central Ohio the primary electric provider charges in the neighborhood of $5 per lamp per month for power. The muni is responsible for purchasing the bulbs if I am remembering correctly.
First, you legislate it since its the only way to get it done. Sad but true. Next, you only need LED light bulbs [wikipedia.org]. You don't have to replace the full lamp, at least if these [ccrane.com] consumer [earthled.com] sites [productdose.com] are anything to go by.
If the cost of power and the cost of the bulb are figured in, the LED street lamps take an insane amount of time to recoup the cost. Even when you figure in the labor to replace the bulbs every couple of years it still doesn't add up.
Per the source [nytimes.com] Wikipedia provided the extra initial cost is paid off within two years just from the electricity savings, and barring a physical disaster (such as the streetlamp falling over or getting shot with a gun) you don't have to change the bulb for 20 years. Really, it is a better choice but it would require work by city employees to actually make the change happen. They may even have to do a slide show!
When many budgets are being stretched to the breaking point would you advocate for your town to install LED street lights that will cost more? Would you vote for your taxes to be increased to purchase the lights, or would you prefer that a couple of employees be terminated to pay for the cost difference? I, myself, am not opposed to the idea of installing power saving, pollution reducing equipment, but there has to be a balance somewhere.
Hell yes I would advocate for this. Budgets don't magically get bigger on their own. You have to work for it. You have to plan and invest for it. This is a very, fucking, simple, means to save the city/town a lot of money and power, and it cuts down on light pollution as an added bonus!
Oh and something else to chew on: as more demand for LED lights increases, in the form of cities and towns using them for streetlights, the manufacturing process will be improved as companies compete with one another to produce a cheaper light bulb to sell. That's basic market principles. Demand drives innovation. Yet another long term economic bonus by mandating a switch to LED lights.
Apparently the Department of Energy in the US thinks they're a damn good thing that should be improved so they can become the defacto light source. They're hosting a contest [lightingprize.org] since May 2008 to create a better LED light bulb. They call it the L-Prize.
Really, once you look at the known facts and the future potential you have to ask yourself why not? A handful of employees might lose their job? Taxes may go up a fraction of a percent? You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and you can't make improvements for the future without paying for it. To hold back on something as simple as this for the reasons you gave is petty, just petty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"$5 per lamp per month"
Times how many lamps? $60/lamp/year isn't bad if there's only a few lamps, but a lot of places run lamps every 50 feet or so down every decently populated street, and that could mean hundreds or thousands of lamps in an area... even a fairly small improvement in per lamp cost can be dramatic once multiplied out across that many units.
Re:I am confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that was a knee jerk response, but a good one. Often You hear advocacy group A advocate their position as if it was the only one around. For the price of a starbucks latte we could put a Man on mars!. Or eliminate Cancer. Or eliminate AIDS. Or Create 1 million high paying jobs.
The point being that there are trade offs... opportunity costs. That isn't an argument for the status quo, but somethings need to be considered in conjunction with other factors. As the parent suggested perhaps there is a way we could cheaply reduce the light pollution while maintaining the current level of crime fighting that it gives us.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I am confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps simply because blue is a calming color?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Blue is great until you get fog. The wavelength of blue light is about the same size as water, so is highly dispersed in foggy conditions. There's a reason why sodium-discharge lamps are so popular in coastal California.
Must be (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or install Google earth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I live in England, there are very few places, if any, where light pollution does not affect the night sky.
The most remote places I have been to are Pembrook (South Wales) and the lake district. I've seen light pollution, even though it is slight, in both of these places.
In the last 10 or so years the level of light pollution where I live (the edge of the peak district) has noticable increased. I used to be able to make out the milky way very easily at night, but can't see it at all any more. I don't thin
Re:I am confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they travelled about 30 miles they would have been able to see a thousand or so and just made out the milky way. If they travelled 100 miles they would have seen real dark skies - but they had obviously done neither.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was that "not being able to see a lot of stars" is extremely petty
Petty, compared to what? Compared to air-pollution and sound-pollution? Certainly -- that's why we have laws for those things already, and not yet for light-pollution.
But that it's of smaller significance that *those* things, doesn't make it a meaningless one to try to solve.
I agree, but the benefits of streetlights far, outweigh the downside of "waaah I can't see as many stars as people in 1850 could!"
The only one saying "waah" is y
Re:I am confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
drive for a couple hours
You're lucky if you live somewhere where darkness is only a car drive away.
The islands that constitute my home country are pretty thoroughly populated, so there's no direction in which a couple hours' drive would get you to a dark spot; I'd have to drive a good distance into the neighbouring country. Not something I'd do for casual stargazing to awe and inspire the kids!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
1. We've already built these nice monster sized telescopes, they are not all that portable
2. Even in virtually uninhabited places like Death Valley, you're still getting quite a bit of light pollution from Las Vegas, which is over 85 miles away. There are very few truly dark places left in the continental US.
Re:Apocalypse (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps the rest of you could finally kill each other off so I can enjoy the night sky. Its a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can see city glow for literally over 100 miles. Where, pray tell, on the east coast (where I live) can I drive "a couple hours" and be 150 miles from the nearest town, city, or lighted interstate?
That's the whole point — there is virtually no where in the continental United States left that has truly dark skies anymore. And the sad part is, we could get them back at low cost, but its not e
Re:I am confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing provides a more dramatic reduction in crime than a good streetlight
Nothing provides help for criminals like a poorly designed streetlight that provides strong cover shadows while blinding would-be crime watchers. Most super bright nighttime lighting does exactly this. People like you who think any light is a good light are part of the problem, both for crime and seeing the stars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing provides help for criminals like a poorly designed streetlight that provides strong cover shadows while blinding would-be crime watchers. Most super bright nighttime lighting does exactly this. People like you who think any light is a good light are part of the problem, both for crime and seeing the stars.
C'mon. If nobody's watching, then all a streetlight does is let the criminal see what he's doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing provides a more dramatic reduction in crime than a good streetlight.
Wealth.
Re:I am confused... (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed,
money can buy allot of shotgun shells.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC an astronomer at Lick Observatory told me once that the High Pressure Sodium lamps caused worse problems than the Mercury Vapor lamps, but the cities were switching over (back in the '60s) to get more lumens per watt of electricity. Those fucking tweakers are amazing aren't they? Here I think they carry nail-pullers.
It's really amazing how much of a difference (Score:5, Informative)
getting out into the middle of nowhere makes. On a clear night out in Yellowstone, for example, there are so many stars in the sky it can be hard to find constellations you're used to seeing in the city. Really beautiful.
People need to get past the idea that you have to try to illuminate every shadow. All you're doing is ruining people's night vision, and thus making the remaining shadows "darker".
Red lights (Score:5, Interesting)
+1 Clever! :) (Score:4, Funny)
Whenever I explain your point to other people, they look at me like I'm from another planet.
You'll get used to it, eventually... sometimes the easiest way is to just tell them that you ARE ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a guy that tried that. At least, I think he was 'trying' it and not really believing it. It didn't work well for him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Red lights (Score:5, Informative)
correct. The pupil is effected (affected? - who gives a fsck) by the blue scale. The use of a red light for night time map reading etc allows the pupil to remain open and there is no visibility lost when the light is switched off.
Try for yourself. Get a torch and a red filter and a blue filter. Go out at night and let your eyes get used to the darkness. Shine the torch through the red filter such that you cannot see any white lite. You will be able to see quite well after you switch the torch off. Now try with the blue filter. Once you switch the torch off you will have to wait until your eyes adjust to the darkness again.
Re:Red lights (Score:5, Funny)
Try for yourself. Get a torch and a red filter and a blue filter. Go out at night and let your eyes get used to the darkness. Shine the torch through the red filter such that you cannot see any white lite. You will be able to see quite well after you switch the torch off.
I tried, this - but not realizing you weren't American, I ended up setting both the red and blue filters on fire, and then badly burning myself trying to switch the torch off.
But is it my fault? I think not - you are the one named fireman sam, so I would have thought you'd have been a bit more responsible!
Re:Red lights (Score:4, Interesting)
Red lights are used by people with telescopes. This page [stlplaces.com] has a good bit of detail on the biology behind night vision and different colors. The basic summary? If you want fast dark adaptation, use blue-green. If you want to see detail and can afford to lose peripheral vision, use very low level deep red. For general walking-around light. blue-green with enough red to get rid of the night blind spot (or dim white). If you need to see color, dim white.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know exactly what you mean. In my younger days my family lived in rural Missouri where they didn't have any street lights (back country roads are like that.....or used to be at any rate). I could go outside on any given night and see the Milky Way. I've since moved central Ohio and now I realize what a problem street lamps are for stargazing. It is a real shame, and I can't help but think about the number of people who have grown up in the city and never experienced a true night sky.
Cost of energy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cost of energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Towns will question why they are spending so much on lighting and cut back...Similarly, I think people will curb their habits of trying to light entire cities at night.
And this curbing of their habits will come to an abrupt halt once someone is mugged/assaulted/raped on a normally safe - but slightly darker - street, and the think-of-the-children rallying cry is raised.
The bottom line is that lighting in heavily populated areas does increase safety, by discouraging those who would use the cover of darkness for their crimes. The couple dollars a night it takes to light a mile of street is well worth the cost to those living on, or walking at night on, those streets.
"It's better to light a candle, than curse the darkness."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
Re:Cost of energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Towns will question why they are spending so much on lighting and cut back...Similarly, I think people will curb their habits of trying to light entire cities at night.
And this curbing of their habits will come to an abrupt halt once someone is mugged/assaulted/raped on a normally safe - but slightly darker - street, and the think-of-the-children rallying cry is raised. The bottom line is that lighting in heavily populated areas does increase safety, by discouraging those who would use the cover of darkness for their crimes. The couple dollars a night it takes to light a mile of street is well worth the cost to those living on, or walking at night on, those streets.
I am not sure I agree, Public lighting increases the contrast between light and shadow. And shadowed areas are still there.
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom line is that lighting in heavily populated areas does increase safety, by discouraging those who would use the cover of darkness for their crimes. The couple dollars a night it takes to light a mile of street is well worth the cost to those living on, or walking at night on, those streets.
If crime was that much of a worry, they would probably be installing blue light. [softpedia.com] In energy conscious Japan, in the area where I was living they were doing exactly that. I just can't see them doing that in the US of A.
Now some people have been recommending red lights. I can only wonder what effect that would have on crime (if any.) I would think that blue light would probably be better than while light for star watching, but not as good as red.
Re:Cost of energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment uses something that he never said (slightly darker), to base your whole argumentation off of it.
The point of this whole thread was, that you can reduce light pollution without reducing brightness on the street at all.
in fact, mirroring the light back to the ground instead of losing it to the sky, will make for more efficient lights. So just installing mirrors will brighten the streets!
Installing lamps that are darker by the same amount, that they gain by reflecting everything to the streets, will make them exactly as bright as the old lights, while saving energy.
That's why some grand-parent post called it a win-win.
But you could not afford not to ignore that, could you? Or else your whole argumentation, and with that, your whole point of view, would collapse like a house of cards. And that you just could not accept.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off, let's not pretend that light pollution is harmless to human health. The circadian system is at least in part regulated by the amount and type of light that our eyes receive. As for safety, there are several types. As far as traffic goes, street lights are generally positively correlated with safety at intersections, but lighting of roadways between intersections shows mixed results in the studies I've seen.
Back to the main point of your post, though: crime. Ever heard of the Chicago Alley Lig
Re: (Score:2)
As the cost of energy rises in the medium future, I think this will sort itself out.
Using LEDs may help, because they are much more directional and emit light on narrow bands.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but you misunderstand two things:
1) We live in a society where the mentality of security and safety greatly overrides that of efficiency and scientific endeavour.
2) If you've see a city from the air at night, you'd notice that the vast majority of the Orange Hue comes from city streetlights and businesses (large empty parking lots, mostly). Residential lighting is either too dim or too sparse to make nearly as much difference when it comes to lighting up the sky.
The best tact to counter li
Re: (Score:2)
I use Surefire flashlights now, but at the time I carried a Mini-Maglite, with the regular incandescent bulb. I put a pair of AAs in there at the be
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked at a summer camp a few years ago, all of the staff carried flashlights, but rarely used them, because they were able to walk the trails at night with nothing but ambient light from the sky
Near a city, thats easy to do ;)
In the Mallee [wikipedia.org] I have been out on nights where Venus was almost too bright to look at, and distant towns could be seen by their halos.
I will inject into this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
My annoyance with any and all of you who are reading this and use any kind of bright hurricane light while camping. You ruin my night vision. You dont need your stupid light you fool. Grrrr.
Even on the darkest of nights, you dont need any light to find your way around in the dark. Give yourself a couple minutes to adjust and you will do fine. If you really need light, get a maglite and some blue gels for it. Using a blue gel will let you turn on the light for a second or two while you check for the boogie man, and when you turn it off you'll have most of your night vision back right away.
Re:I will inject into this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to live in the country side when I was I kid and there were no lights. It used to be pitch black to the point where it felt like walking with my eyes closed.
Perhaps in open areas what you say is true however if you're in a wooded area with overhanging trees then you'd have no chance of seeing in the dark.
speaking from experience... (Score:2)
Even on a moonless night, in a dense forest, you can still navigate when you are familiar with the area (paths, etc).
It may have something to do with non-visual navigation abilities [slashdot.org] discussed here recently...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yea, i still remember the first time i went stargazing somewhere with practically no light pollution. i was staying at a rural Buddhist temple/monastery in Taiwan for a Buddhist summer camp. Taiwan has a somewhat tropical climate, and i remember it being a warm summer night with a very soothing breeze. the group of us just laid on the roof of the monastery for hours staring up at the star-filled sky. it was absolutely breathtaking.
being able to see the night sky like that really is one of those simple pleas
beauty of light pollution (Score:2)
using pretty art to highlight "pollution" seems incongruous. shouldn't it be more intriguing [amazon.com] and a little repulsive [edwardburtynsky.com]?
Protecting the sky is possible (Score:5, Interesting)
Dark Sky Parks (Score:5, Interesting)
In Galloway in Scotland, the local tourist board is trying to set up a dark sky park. The area that they're planning to open it is apparently the darkest place in Europe.
There are already two in the US, in Utah (http://www.nps.gov/nabr/parknews/news040507.htm) and Northern Pennsylvania (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/cherrysprings.aspx). This BLDGBLOG article mentions suggests World Heritage sites for experiencing darkness, set up to protect dark areas: http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/dark-sky-park.html [blogspot.com]
I recently visited Poland (Krakow) and there the level of street lighting was a lot lower, resulting in reduced light pollution. Streets were mostly lit with light reflected from buildings. It's surprising to be able to see the night sky from the middle of a city of 1 million. It's not comparable to countryside darkness by any means, but it really changes the character of a city.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the phenomena I observed while enjoying the Northridge Earthquake of '94 was a starry sky over Los Angeles. It'd be nice if the engineers could sell new lights to our cities that would allow that again.
Not just about turning off the lights (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not just about turning off the lights (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Light pollution is just one of the by-products of industrialization.
Close to my house the Bolte Bridge [wikipedia.org] is a massive source of light pollution because it is illuminated from below by lights which point up. Environmentalists complained, pointing to design standards which specify how such lighting should be done, but noting came of it.
Sometimes we just have to not do stupid things, like pumping light into outer space, which has plenty of light already.
you are expecting a bit much (Score:2)
Sometimes we just have to not do stupid things
Call me when that happens...
Go where it's dark (Score:4, Interesting)
There are plenty of areas around which are void of lighting. Often times lights are necessary for safety and although you may be able to encourage people to use mirrors and what not to maximize the amount of light hitting the ground rather than going up into the sky, you're not going to have much luck getting populated areas to turn down the lights much. Lighting helps avoid crime.
You can't have a dark city.
The government should just make sure they have large enough plots of land that keep the cities far away so people can go visit and view the dark sky.
Re:Go where it's dark (Score:4, Interesting)
yes, but you can be smarter about it.
My street could loose 1/3 the street lights and it wouldn't impact crime.
Lights with caps, lower light that shine across a street instead of down, and so on.
Re:Go where it's dark (Score:4, Insightful)
Light is way more effective (and cheaper) than surveillance cameras. The real issue about the light
pollution is that most street lights are old and are positioned wrong. They should target the floor, and the light should not spread in every direction (which is useless anyway). Better street lights would both reduce costs and light pollution.
However, it is extremely costly to replace all the street lights in a city.
Tucson, AZ tries... (Score:5, Informative)
Tucson has been working on this for years to protect various local observatories. It's also the home to the international dark sky association: http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do [darksky.org]
They have a city ordinance making it illegal to have a light shining upwards - all lights (street lights, security lights, porch lights, etc) have to have a reflector. It's apparently pretty easy to police - bare bulbs are highly visible from the police helicopter.
Seems to be kinda silly to spend your lighting budget trying to illuminate the universe anyway.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So they can have their big house, duh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get it. Why do people move out to the country if they don't want it to be like the country?
Because they like the city even less. It's not safe for their spoiled miniconsumers and there is no room there to build their new starter-castle and pico-estate. They want to live the soap-opera lifestyle and do so by incurring deep debt. Just wait a few years and I have a feeling that a lot of those estates will be dark or at least most of the lights busted and unrepaired.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly there's a "for sale" sign out front. I wonder what happened
So buy it (you can probably get it cheap) and tear it down. Break up the slab or fill the basement and nature will fix the rest in a few years. If you were there before the neighborhood, you shouldn't have any lawn or deed restrictions to worry about.
Easier (Score:2)
Just buy it, put a covenant on it, and sell it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So buy it
It's unfortunate that so often our answer to an injustice against someone is that the victim should fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars if he wants it rectified.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hey, at least nobody will need to build any more houses near you for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a feeling that a lot of those estates will be dark or at least most of the lights busted and unrepaired.
If you go to many of the DC suburbs, you can see this now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand this myself. It should be dark at night.
I also think it is false security. If the lights are on, they can see you. If the lights are off (and your eyes dark adopted) you can see them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me you should've looked into owning the woods and other pieces of land you loved so much.
People need places to live.
Ask them to turn down the lights if it bothers you that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Flagstaff (Score:5, Informative)
There is plenty of lighting for the town and yet you can see stars like you should be able to see stars.
A mugger speaks... (Score:5, Funny)
... as a knife wielding teenage gang member I welcome any dark sky initiative - and I can assure you that all my victims will be seeing stars when I've finished with them (shortly before they die in a pool of their own blood ...)
At last, the needs of amateur astrologers, penny pinching local councils, and muggers finally coincide! Happy days!
Re:A mugger speaks... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see any fnords (Score:3, Funny)
Or is this a different Illuminati Project ?
The name game (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it something in his genes that compels a Geek to give a worthwhile project a name that carries a lot of excess baggage?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The (primary) meaning of Illuminati:
1. People claiming to be unusually enlightened with regard to a subject.
Just because people associate a word with something other than its meaning doesn't mean we should stop using the word. In this instance, I think it's quite a clever piece of word-play.
...or maybe (Score:2, Funny)
Earthmate? (Score:2)
Terrible Photos (Score:3, Interesting)
Only the first [flickr.com] photo of the Group [flickr.com] is any good at "showing" light pollution. The rest are terrible.
Thats a great idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They should use comparison photos (Score:3, Insightful)
like this one taken on the night of the 2003 blackout, and on the following night
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com/pow/pow94.jpg [skynewsmagazine.com]
How Convenient... (Score:2)
I fondly remember seeing flashes of the aurora from my childhood home. If I was to go there now and look to the north, all I'd
Re:Absolutely, lets end civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal of environmentalism is to improve the quality of life for human beings -- to ensure that our environment, which by definition is everything that surrounds us, is a healthy and pleasant place to live. I'm not sure what it is about this that raises your ire.
African Environment (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Absolutely, lets end civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, you've uncovered our evil plan! And we would have got away with it, too, if it weren't for you darn /.ers!
GMAFB. Environmentalists don't want people to starve to death any more than anti-environmentalists want people to choke to death on pollution. Pretty much everyone (well, everyone sane, anyway) wants steady food production, clean air and water, a healthy economy, thriving wildlife, etc.; we simply disagree about the best ways to accomplish these goals and resolve the conflicts which sometimes occur between them. If you want to talk about specific issues and ways you think we can do better than the current approach, go ahead. If all you can do is throw out blanket accusations, you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.
Re:Absolutely, lets end civilization (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great, get back to me when Greenpeace and the World Wildlife foundation stop lying and want to join in real scientific debate rather then scaremongering.
Re:Absolutely, lets end civilization (Score:5, Funny)
Think how much easier it would be to see the stars if we just stopped making electricity. The night skies would be black like they were a thousand years ago. We could all go back to living in caves and wearing fur, no wait, we can't kill animals, and wearing fur is evil and sit by the fire, no burning wood produces CO2, so we'll sit in our dark caves, huddled together to stay warm and slowly starve to death. But then there wouldn't be anyone to look up at the stars. And that is the true goal of "environmentalism".
Are you on a mission to pack the maximum amount of gibberish and straw men into a single post?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Archimedes Plutonium has found a new stomping ground I think. Update on his shares portfolio at 11.