jump to navigation
Recent Comments:
- keithf: Agree with most of this, as far it’s in the context of civilization (which is unsustainable anyhow), except for: 1) Replacing the...
- keithf: Hi Leo Being green is not a luxury at all, unless you think that you can only be “green” (a true misnomer) through...
- greensolacafe: Keith, thanks for comments. About the new vs. old - well, the new one was less money than the used, and bear in mind that the new...
- keithf: A new hybrid, so that’s how many more tonnes of greenhouse gases in raw materials, smelting, processing, manufacturing and...
- keithf: Hi Will I think the realisation that the President, whoever he is, will not be able to make any significant changes is the first step in...
- will: Wow, that’s a really depressing post, Keith. Of course, on many levels you’re right (perhaps your extreme realism is intended to...
- will: I was in Paris this weekend and these Velib bikes were everywhere! I was with my kids, one of whom is pre-biking age, so I was unable to use...
- keithf: Oh, I don’t know, Dennis - that sounded like a pretty stern statement; agree with all of it, except maybe for the use of the word...
- Dennis: Keith, to find myself taking the optimistic rather than the pessimistic side of a question surprises me. But I think you may be a bit too...
- Dennis: OK, it’s got me too now….
Comments»
I know I shouldn’t take this seriously but…”You’re driving down the highway…”
So there’s the problem. Not A/C or Windows - it’s the fact that you’re driving.
Environmentalism is really so easy - as a rule of thumb just do and use less of everything - it’s only made complex because companies and politicians *want it to be complex*. Confusion prevents action and means nothing will change - that’s what the system wants.
Will SLATE or Mr. Stephen Colbert ever discuss the global challenge posed by the human overpopulation of Earth with the kind of concentrated and sustained attention this looming threat to humanity deserves?
The widely shared and consensually-validated belief in the overall decline in absolute global human population numbers in our time, leading to population stabilization worldwide in 2050, is simply and straightforwardly a specious, inadequate product of preternatural thought as well as a colossal misperception. Many too many powerbrokers inside and outside the manmade global political economy have actively supported the unrealistic belief in population stabilization because it has proven to be politically convenient, economically expedient and supportive of their selfish interests.
According to new, unwelcome, unchallenged and apparently unforeseen scientific evidence of the human overpopulation of Earth, we can understand the growth or decline of the population numbers of the human species primarily as a function of global food supply. This means that human population dynamics of the human species is essentially common to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species. From a global or species perspective, more food equals more people; less food equals less people; and, in any case, no food equals no people.
Please consider this request. Could someone at SLATE or Stephen Colbert ask top-rank scientists to carefully and skillfully examine the emerging science of human population dynamics and report their findings?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php