More Than 15,000 Scientists From 184 Countries Issue 'Warning To Humanity' (www.cbc.ca) 405
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: More than 15,000 scientists around the world have issued a global warning: there needs to be change in order to save Earth. It comes 25 years after the first notice in 1992 when a mere 1,500 scientists issued a similar warning. This new cautioning -- which gained popularity on Twitter with #ScientistsWarningToHumanity -- garnered more than 15,000 signatures. William Ripple of Oregon State University's College of Forestry, who started the campaign, said that he came across the 1992 warning last February, and noticed that this year happened to mark the 25th anniversary. Together with his graduate student, Christopher Wolf, he decided to revisit the concerns raised then, and collect global data for different variables to show trends over the past 25 years. Ripple found: A decline in freshwater availability; Unsustainable marine fisheries; Ocean dead zones; Forest losses; Dwindling biodiversity; Climate change; Population growth. There was one positive outcome, however: a rapid decline in ozone depletion. One of the potential solutions is to stabilize the population. If we reduce family size, consumption patterns don't rise as much. And that can be done by empowering girls and women, providing sexual education and education on family planning.
So... what can the average prole do? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, other than driving a Prius and moving to a sardine can style apartment in the inner city, what realistically can people do as something against AGW? There is tons of talk, but all of it seems to just be blaming people.
It reminds me of the town I live in, where water rationing was killing property values, because the older oak trees were dying. However, it was found that the golf court down the road was using 75% or more of the water, so all the losses in dead trees and cracked foundations due to ground shrinkage did nothing. Similar with the rice paddies.
The people who can do something won't... and promptly blame it on the people who can't do anything about AGW.
Re:So... what can the average prole do? (Score:5, Insightful)
The average prole can do little. His eco footprint is already nearly insignificant because he can't even afford running the damn AC anymore.
Those that do have the eco footprint of an elephant also seem to think they can buy themselves another earth and to hell with the rest. Get rid of them and we're solving a lot of ecological (and probably economical) problems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Vote. Vote for people who will join the Paris agreement, who will enact legislation that reduces emissions on a national level.
Re: (Score:3)
I will. Provided I ever get to.
Sadly, in this kind of democracy, while we get to choose between the candidates, the corporations get to choose what candidates there are in the first place. I think it's called the separation of powers or something like that, to separate you from the power.
Re: (Score:2)
But ... but who's gonna do all the work then?
Re: (Score:2)
First let's tell our cities to stop subsidizing the roads with sales taxes and stop forcing developers to build more parking than the market thinks is financially optimal. Freedom, low taxes, and low shelf prices are all good things, right?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So, other than driving a Prius and moving to a sardine can style apartment in the inner city, what realistically can people do as something against AGW?
How about having no more than one child? A lot of our problems would be greatly reduced (if not eliminated entirely) if the planet had fewer humans.
access to education and voluntary family planning (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, it's always get rid of someone else's children, isn't it ? We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
It's odd that when an article suggests reducing the rate of population growth, a certain subset of radical conservatives immediately starts shouting "We need to abort their babies!"
What the actual article [oregonstate.edu] says is taking the step of:
So, why is it that you suddenly start shouting about abortion?
Do you want to actually reduce the rate of abortion? That turns out to be really simple: abortion rates decrease when people have access to birth control. Simple.
Boy, it would be really convenient of all these simple cultures would just stop procreating in the first place. Maybe the WHO could just pay some group to just sterilize them, like they did in Kenya? But you know what would really "eliminate" the problem? What if we just eliminated those humans, so they don't burn all those fuels without scrubbers, and pollute those lakes, and cut down the forests for fields to grow food? After all, those leftists are looking out for the "greater good", so it's ok if it's nonconsentual.
What part of "access to education and voluntary family planning" is it that you are referring to here?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take a radical fucking conservative to look out the window and see that depopulation has already hit white countries, hard.
Well, the country I live in is only white in small parts, and mostly in wintertime. I'll give you Greenland, but what other countries are predominantly white?
Re: (Score:2)
It would actually be a socialist thing to introduce parenting licences in conjunction with social services support. Unfit to raise a child and you are unfit to have a child. Now how do you enforce that, threat of death, threat of sterilisation, really nasty stuff. There is a way, a whole lot of pregnancy relate to nothing more than laziness and excessive use of intoxicants, with absolutely no desire to have a child or raise it properly. So an easy incentive, incorporate birth control medication with very ch
Re: (Score:3)
So, other than driving a Prius and moving to a sardine can style apartment in the inner city, what realistically can people do as something against AGW? There is tons of talk, but all of it seems to just be blaming people.
Ideally, there's a bunch we could be doing if we really wanted to:
1) Do the R&D and start building SkyTran [wikipedia.org] systems in metro areas to reduce the usage of fossil-fuel burning cars and the amount of traffic.
2) Push for more electric and hybrid vehicles. Ideally, non-hybrid vehicles shoul
Re: (Score:2)
So, other than driving a Prius ...
The average person in the world has NO car. So if you drive a Prius you are already producing much more than your fair share of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
AGW isn't even mentioned in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Population will stabilize itself.
The earth isn't going anywhere, it'll do just fine.
Maybe we will just get rid of ourselves, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving a prius does some, but not nearly as much as taking your bicycle or public transit, even just part of the trips you do.
Personal automobiles are the single most per capita damaging activity carried out by Americans, who carry out most of the damage overall.
Remember it isn't just the fuel--it's the tires, the manufacture and disposal, and the roads, which mean lots more fuel consumption, asphalt.
And it's not just carbon loading that cars cause. They also are highly detrimental to wildlife, produce man
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... what can the average prole do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than shouting anyone down, do what China does, ignore the yammerheads and Just Fucking Build It. This applies to carbon-free energy sources and it also applies to projects that cut energy demand, like regional high speed rail.
If we really intend to phase out fossil fuel usage by some reasonable year like 2050, there is no other way.
Re: (Score:3)
ignore the yammerheads and Just Fucking Build It
A lot easier to do when there's one political party that you compete to be a part of, instead of two parties competing for the lowest common denominator.
Not saying we should be like China, just maybe we wouldn't have these problems if "Get all the uneducated to vote for me" wasn't a winning strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Something changed in the UK and probably elsewhere. Back in the 1930s we built a nationwide electricity grid. Big ugly pylons all over the place. Before that we built a nationwide rail network, and after that we built motorways all over the place.
There were protests but the will to get those things built for the benefit of the nation was there. Now we have an opportunity to build infrastructure that is clean and benefits everyone and that few people would object to, but the will is lacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except in the US.
Re: So... what can the average prole do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Encourage abortion for those that continue to poduce with no way of paying for them.
Uh, just to point out the obvious, a simpler and cheaper solution would be just to make sure that birth control is available to those who want it.
Re: So... what can the average prole do? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
The problem is, you're telling the wrong audience. Western societies are already having depopulation problems.
Re: (Score:2)
... and the people of Africa, Asia and Latin America and a minute carbon footprint compared to the West. How do you think it is that the entire population of Africa has a smaller carbon footprint than the US?
Re: (Score:2)
... and the people of Africa, Asia and Latin America and a minute carbon footprint compared to the West.
That is changing fast. Their economies are growing quickly, and their energy consumption is going up. So if they start reducing their population growth now, it will have a big impact in the future.
Many 3rd world women would like to have smaller families. They don't have access to contraceptives, for legal and cultural reasons, and end up having kids that they don't even want. Getting contraceptives to the people that need them is way more cost effective than any other form of CO2 reduction
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the whole world is nearing the ideal stable or even slightly decreasing fertility rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We fixed this already. Education by charities and governments works. The only reason that population is still increasing is that people are living longer.
Now we just need to concentrate on things like clean energy and sustainable farming.
Re: (Score:2)
Encourage abortion for those that continue to poduce with no way of paying for them.
Uh, just to point out the obvious, a simpler and cheaper solution would be just to make sure that birth control is available to those who want it.
Right, and never mind this has nothing to do with the problem being discussed anyway. One thing about right-wingers that never ceases to amaze me is, they can’t stand to see some poor person get a little help from society, but have no problem giving millions to already wealthy people. They seem to think one comes out of their paycheck, but the other doesn’t.
Re: (Score:2)
[About 15.5 old-style tweets, not counting "... ...", with approximately zero useful information]
That's more then 140 characters, Mr. President!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting we sterilize the poor? That's not going to go over well. Even if it's just long term birth control like those implants under the skin or something. You are going to have to convince people that have problems buying enough food to take their birth control pills on time, or abstain from sex, or always use barrier birth control. You can give them the pills but they might take them how they are supposed to, or they might sell them to some transgender or more well to do teen that doesn't w
Re: (Score:3)
For the right wing guys who think Trump was the only chance they had to lower the number of abortions, well his attempts at gutting the ACA and its birth control mandate stand a good chance of reversing the trend on abortions. We were at our lowest ever in 2014, which is the latest data I found. What will we be at in another 3 years?
The right doesn't actually care about abortions. Well, the ones who have drunk the Kool Aid might. But the anti-abortion movement is more about controlling women's sexuality than it is about saving "babies". You have already made the point that they are working against themselves by opposing easy contraception, if their goal is to reduce the number of abortions. But that's because it's about shaming those dirty, dirty sluts, making it more risky to be a dirty, dirty slut, and making sure they are saddle
Missing the obvious other solution (Score:5, Interesting)
If you actually look at some of the statistics published at COP25, you'll see that US and EU emissions are down but GDP is up.
The most rapid growth in emissions is in India, which still has less emissions per person than China does. The rapid increase in pollution, greenhouse emissions, and climate impacts is mostly due to China and India, but even if we reduce it now, some of the gasses take 100 years to clear out of the atmosphere, although other shorter lived gasses are more impactful but have shorter lifespans.
The most obvious other solution is not population growth, which isn't driving either of those top two contributors to the environment, but is literally faster phasing out of harmful energy and food usage including farming, by more efficient energy sources and cracking down on illegal overuse of pesticides and crop waste burning. Note that crop waste can be processed into stored fuel with minimal impacts, but the open burning of crop waste accelerates many other processes.
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
Is that all? I'm sure we'll get right on that.
Trouble is that means tax raises (Score:3)
Mixing politics with science (Score:4, Insightful)
Solution for this means artificial price supports for crop waste, so that it is converted into appropriate fuel, and reducing all tax exemptions and exclusions for all fossil fuels.
And there you go, mixing your political position with the scientific conclusion. This is what causes science denial.
Does the science mandate your position? Are there better solutions available?
I strongly suspect that the best solution is to turn our attention to improvements in technology. This is already happening in the US with the onset of electric vehicles - this will reduce fossil fuel consumption considerably, and serve as a model and testing ground for other nations.
We then have to find energy sources to replace our current fossil fuel use.
I strongly suspect that the best solution will be rooftop solar. This is already happening in the US with the cost of rooftop solar dropping [treehugger.com] precipitously over the last 15 years.
Both of these solutions would dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, and both would benefit from improvements in technology.
Perhaps we should look to science to solve the problem, instead of identity politics?
Banning lead paint & asbestos was "political" (Score:2)
You mean it's your excuse of the moment. If it wasn't this, it would be something else - that's how denialism works.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that the US and Europe and Japan are now being left behind in electric vehicle technology. The US is still in love with fossil fuels, Europe wasted a lot of effort on diesel and cheating, and Japan bet heavily on hybrids. China is building a lot of EVs, building massive battery factories, patenting EV tech like crazy and building up supply lines.
European manufacturers are starting to import Chinese EV technology for their own cars. Japanese companies are scrambling to pivot towards EVs, rea
Another Potential Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Global Pandemic - works for me.
No muss, no fuss, and results have a high probability of "success".
Mother Nature can ( and will ) handle it.
Obviously, back when it was only 1,500 scientists, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obviously, back when it was only 1,500 scientis (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. If the theory disagrees with experiment, then it is Wrong. It doesn't matter how many voices sign the petition for the theory; it must still be rejected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you explain that theory then try a stab at explaining this. I saw a YouTube video of a young woman that claims she's a gay man. So she's a woman that cuts her hair short and wears baggy clothes, likes to fuck dudes, and demands to want to use the men's restroom to pee. Preventing this women from using the men's room so she can try to get a peek at some guy's dick is now some outrage. If that's what we should be outraged about then I'm thinking we're doing pretty good.
We've been so well fed, clothed
Climate models work remarkably well (Score:3)
Except that the climate models have, overall, worked remarkably well.
Here is the first and best-referenced of the global climate models, dated from 1967, and a comparison of the model against the data for the following fifty years: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a [medium.com].
The model fit the data remarkably well over a time span of fifty years.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes, we just can't bear to admit that. What we call "objective truth" is merely a reflection of how many credible people believe in that claim being true. And it's even worse than that: it's how many people who *we believe* are credible do *we believe* they believe a claim is true. If it sounds like turtles all the way down it is: just try to trace the claim of "97% scientists agree" to its roots in reality and you'll see it's based on a long chain of implicit trust based on implicit credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I choose to believe that science is not a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you will believe me I am as uncomfortable with that as you seem to be. But I've been sitting on it for a while and have only found confirmations for it. If that is indeed true ("true") then the sooner we accept it the less we'll fall for bad science. "That" being the idea that our objective knowledge is acquired, held, and maintained as a statistical process, not as our ever closer understanding of the mind of God which was a line of reasoning that started with Newton.
Far greater minds have claimed thing
Re: (Score:2)
Or a letter of 10,000 physics that supported (or rejected) Einsteins views.
Was it maybe because in those cases solid proof was actually available?
Re: (Score:2)
Single child policy for the whole Africa (Score:2, Insightful)
That would probably solve one of the problems neatly.
Africans aren't the problem. You are. (Score:2)
It takes 30 of them to consume the same amount of resources that you do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01... [nytimes.com]
15000 Scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
Among those included in this list of Climate Scientists:
Davis, Joanne - Australian
Daweti, Nokuthula - Student
de Clercq, Deon - Earthling
Hamilton, Ava - independent documentary producer/citizen scientist
Jara, Andrea - Colombian
Thapa, Lal - Asst. Professor of Alien Invasion
It is very hard to take this (or their agenda) seriously when they won't even do the basic science of vetting a list of "scientists".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is very hard to take this (or their agenda) seriously when they won't even do the basic science of vetting a list of "scientists".
This would carry more weight if:
You weren't AC
You cited your source, because I searched and can't find the official list of names to verify
Re:15000 Scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
This would carry more weight if:
You weren't AC
You cited your source, because I searched and can't find the official list of names to verify
Well, here I am and here's the source [oregonstate.edu] -- amazingly enough, one click on a link from TFA. You didn't search very hard at all, did you?
There are tons more fun ones, like:
Thalmayer, Isaiah: Restoration Project Manager, Point Blue Conservation Science
Swanson, Diana: medicine
Swanson, John: Social Sciences - Psychology, Retired
Swanson, Patrick: Professor, Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Creighton University
It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.
Now that I have a source to verify I agree. And this is how it should work. Make claims, provide evidence, win friends and influence people...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you complaining about the wording of labels, or something deeper?
Well it does seem a little odd that these people are supposed to be 'scientists', who you know, have a reputation for rigour, yet can't demonstrate a high school level science by not referencing sources correctly. I mean come on, I don't doubt the actual science, but this looks as dodgy as fuck.
The actual message that was signed (Score:4, Insightful)
Population is a problem, but not how you think (Score:2)
The huge problem you have is most first world countries that at this point are taking large steps to protect the environment (in no small part by pushing those concerns off to other countries that handle manufacturing and power generation) actually have negative population growth.
That would seem to solve the problem you are laying out, except for one thing - a lot of the countries with positive population growth are not really that concerned about the environment.
If you really think about this long term, th
We are killing the ocean (Score:2)
There is an excellent documentary on Netflix called Mission Blue [netflix.com]
The problem is that we've let greed over-rule sustainability. All the environmental disasters we are seeing are just the natural consequences of choosing false profits over scientific prophets.
This begs the question though -- What can the average citizen do to make an impact? The article mentions stabilize the population as one possible solution. What are others?
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem: The wrong people care (Score:5, Insightful)
Why they don't care: Short-term profits, keeping shareholders happy, is more important than what'll happen a couple hundred years from now. That's 'someone else's problem to deal with', and these people will all be dead and gone by then; why, so far as they're concerned, should they even care?
Who else is standing in the way of doing something about this: Dominionists, and fundamentalist religious organizations. So far as they're concerned, The Earth is a 'temporary' home for humanity, and is therefore expendable, as is all other life on it. Dominionists in particular are more interested in accelerating the destruction of the Earth, because they fervently believe that the sooner they can bring about the Apocalypse, the sooner Zombie Jesus will 'return' to the Earth to 'take them all home'. So anything they can do to make Earth uninhabitable faster is all to the good so far as they're concerned.
Then there's the Average Person; they're too busy just trying to deal with their day-to-day lives (and in some cases, too literally trying to stay alive) to even think about anything that's going to happen even 10 years from now, let alone several hundred years from now. Again, that gets waved off as 'someone elses problem', because they'll all be dead and gone before that even happens. Sure, they think about what their theoretical grandchildren may have to deal with -- so maybe they turn off the lights when they leave a room for more than a few minutes, or put off that errand they need to do until later. But it's all a drop in the bucket that really has no effect, not even if everyone does the same.
Overall there needs to be top-down actions taken, world-wide, in every country that creates a large enough fraction of the total problems. Seeing as we can't seem to get enough nations to agree on how to handle problems a fraction of the size and scope, good bloody luck with that. Add to that resistance the fact that The Rich, the aforementioned religious types, rich, influential religious types, and disinterested greedy corporations aren't going to be cooperative, and the likelihood that anything more than just 'feel-good', overall ineffective things being done becomes rather small. What we really need to have happen first, is a change of hearts and minds across the board; we need everyone to actually give a damn, right down to the core of their being. If someone's got a recipe to make that happen, I'm all ears.
I Need Another Sweater! (Score:2)
The Limits to Growth: 1972 (Score:3, Informative)
Corporation and the rish have not done anything for the last 45 years, do you really think thay would do anything now "to reduce their profits"?
Population, unity (Score:3)
Isaac Asimov said that the biggest threats to humanity were 1) overpopulation and 2) humanity's habit of splitting itself into groups, and deciding that you are or are not a part of their group. I agree with him.
Here are an Asimov interview and speech on overpopulation [youtube.com] and human unity [youtube.com].
Save the Earth? The Earth will be fine (Score:2)
I bet you... (Score:2)
I could get more than 15k random signatures on a statement saying that AGW is horseshit.
That's pretty much the corollary to what these folks did.
In both cases people would rightly ask, "so what?"
Too late (Score:2)
It's going to be okay! (Score:2)
Quick search if the signatories is interesting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason is the observation that the lengthened basic education for women leads to the age of the first birth being higher. This leads to lower number of children, on average. Only a few years more education for women can lead to stabilization of the number of children per family to two, for example. On the other hand, some nations seem to be afraid of going extinct within a few hundred of years. So, for each according to their needs and solutions according to their problems.
Please Continue (Score:2)
Warmist regards,
ExxonMobil
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that'd help is a cheap, reliable, and reversible contraceptive for men. They're doing trials of such a thing now that blocks the sperm ducts.
Honestly, I think marriage is just a bad institution all around, for everyone. It worked somewhat OK back in the days when women were 2nd-class citizens, but not any more, as proven by the high divorce rate and the huge number of single mothers and kids with divorced parents. We need to re-think the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. The divorce rate is proof that marriage doesn't work. Blaming it on the people isn't productive when more than half the people who try it fail at it; it's the institution.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. The divorce rate is proof that marriage doesn't work.
No. The divorce rate is proof that highly incentivising one party to break a contract will cause that one party to break that contract.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel shut out.
Wheeeehhhhhh, sue you...
Re: (Score:2)
These snowflakes are crying liberal tears because global warming melts snowflakes.
Slight correction, those aren't tears. You said it yourself, they're melting.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Libertarian, following Ayn Rand's wisdom, which
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian (with or without a capital L)-- she was an "Objectivist," a philosophy which she coined and led.
Rand hated libertarianism, and did not hesitate to say so: "Libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology... So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement."
(Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Forum, 1971)
Re: (Score:2)
All those atheist women-empowering individualism preaching shills are out to destroy the corner stones of society:
family, religion, unity.
Loosely connected Individuals are much easier to control and subdue than tight families with high moral values.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those 15,000 scientists probably have a bigger carbon footprint and have little interest in changing that.
Re: 50,000 coal miners order cease and desist (Score:2, Funny)
What? Move off campus into a productive job after graduating?
Certainly not!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever worked in the private sector? They expect results!
And a million smarmy /.ers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They can update their skills, or retire, or take opiates and watch soap operas until they die, eat a bullet... it's up to them.
"Continue destabilizing the planet because I like my job" isn't an option I'm willing to let them have. I really don't care about the consequences for them. Climate change isn't something we thought up last year, scientists have be
Warming [Re: And a million smarmy /.ers] (Score:3)
You're missing the point (Score:3)
Did you read the article? (Score:2)
An
Re: (Score:2)
The 15,000 scientists are overruled by the 50,000 US coal miners.
Well, if those 15,000 scientists met up with the 50,000 on the streets . . . at least we could make progress on the overpopulation problem by about 65,000.
And we could offer the spectacle on pay-per-view, like the Connor McGregor / Floyd Mayweather fight. We could spend the profits on fixing ocean dead zones . . .
. . . or just blow it Vegas on whores, coke and blackjack, since we are all doomed to die anyway because of Unsustainable marine fisheries; Ocean dead zones; Forest losses; Dwindling biodiversit
Re:50,000 coal miners order cease and desist (Score:5, Insightful)
Every thing the coal industry had has been stripped and sold. From profitable mines, to equipment, to river front real estate, to scenic valleys, to pension funds to ... every last thing the coal industry had has been stripped and raided and stolen and sold away.
The last thing remaining is the vote of these desperate people, stuck in a dead end job, too old to retrain, in isolated communities. A country as rich as ours should be able to take care of them. After all the coal industry built America, they contributed significantly to the wealth we are enjoying today. We should be able to buy any mine that is losing money, keep all the miners on the payroll to properly shut the mine down, cap off, and close it. Absorb them all into fish and wildlife service and park service and do conservation work till they all retire. There are not that many left, and we need their expertise to close the mines safely.
But that is not going to happen. Their vote is valuable, and keeping them angry and desperate is the way to get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Goddamn right. Those egghead scientists ain't so smart. It's not like they're rocket scientists. Well, OK, some of them are, but not all of them, so screw them. If I cain't dig coal, how'm I supposed to get the Black Lung like my daddy and his daddy before him? Us Crowder's been on this hill since eighteen and twenty and ain't no goddamn scientist with his fancy calculus gonna get us off'n this hill. And by the way, any chance we can get
Re: (Score:2)
The 15,000 scientists are overruled by the 50,000 US coal miners.
Do us all a favor and go back to your coal mines and never come out again. Eliminates unnecessary population and their carbon footprint. If we're lucky, no one left will know how to dig doom out of the ground to burn up.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a moment to realize that what is being referred to here is not the developed world, where population tends to stabilize, even though footprint increases. It's the post-agrarian/tribal cultures that have large families and isolationism deeply ingrained in their traditions. It takes slow, patient work to untangle the Gordian knot of religion/mores/entrenchment. Also when you try to change someone's culture it takes a whole ass-ton of humility to not get run out on a rail. So, the bible-thumping anti-
Re: (Score:2)
Also when you try to change someone's culture it takes a whole ass-ton of humility to not get run out on a rail. So, the bible-thumping anti-birth-control missionaries of the last several centuries were plainly a highly suboptimal approach.
What are you talking about? From what I've read, the bible-thumping anti-birth-control fundamentalist missionaries are highly successful in Subsaharan Africa. They're the reason in fact that some countries there passed "kill the gays" laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a big problem I have with singularity-ists: what they see as an e
How about "self-centered twit" instead? (Score:2)
It takes 30 people in developing countries [nytimes.com] to consume the same amount of resources as you do, BigChigger.
The problem isn't their overpopulation. It's your overconsumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the missing link (Score:2)
The summary fails to link to the actual article; instead it links to articles talking about the article.
The article in question is here:
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_warning_2017.pdf [oregonstate.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every individual that's alive is proof that humanity isn't.
And every individual that isn't born obviously won't care shit.
Re: (Score:2)
There was one Pitagoras
Pythagoras perhaps?