I’m glad to see this question becoming more public. Though it seems to still be considered radical. It is one of many factors that went into my (and my wife’s) decision not to have children decades ago.
P.S. I should really correct my statement above. Neither I nor my wife ever really wanted children. But, while we were still of breeding age and before my vasectomy, when we’d hear a wailing infant, we’d make comments like “Reason number 837 not to have kids.” But, we’d also make comments on hearing about overpopulation or some environmental crisis, especially climate change and ocean acidification, like “won’t be our kids dealing with this.” Actually, we still make such comments.
I’ve been talking about the Great Human Die-off for years and have felt like somewhat of a crackpot for doing so. I’ve usually qualified it as just my opinion based on hearing and reading a lot of environmental science.
Now, it seems that the idea of human extinction within the time frame of those alive today is no longer such a crackpot idea.
Apparently, if you have the cash up front to buy one of these things without a mortgage, you can survive whatever humans do to the planet, theoretically. I can’t personally really imagine how many years of food they could have stored in there.
For me though, I’m not sure life under such conditions, even in a luxury condo, is necessarily better than the alternative. I think I’ll stick with an overdose of insulin if it comes to it.
President Obama is seeking an international climate accord that would not require cooperation from either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I don’t love the idea of completely going around our political system on this. But, with the survival of humanity and most of the multicellular life in the biosphere and in fact, the health of the biosphere as a whole on the line, it may be necessary.
We all know that if he tries to get this through even the senate, he’ll never get the required 67% for a treaty. After all, the repugnicans have proven that they would rather kill off humanity and cause another Permian/Triassic level extinction (where 95% of all multicellular species go extinct) than actually allow Obama to accomplish so much as brushing his teeth.
So, for now, with the means being not too bad and the ends being necessary for survival, I’m going to go with the ends justify the means on this limited case, even though I strongly disagree with the philosophy for most issues.
Check out this link to see some of the more interesting changes since our last cooler than average month. Back to the Future was in theaters for a ticket price of $2.75. Now we’re just a couple of years away from getting our hoverboards. Yay!!
I’m sure many who read my blog have been convinced for a while that I’m somewhat of a fear monger with respect to climate change and overpopulation. Perhaps. Before you make up your mind, read this:
The figures come as one of the world’s leading environmentalists issued a warning that the global food supply system could collapse at any point, leaving hundreds of millions more people hungry, sparking widespread riots and bringing down governments. In a shocking new assessment of the prospects of meeting food needs, Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken.
Good thing climate change is just a hoax. Dig hole in sand. Insert head. Fill in hole. Ignorance is bliss.
“Armed aggression is no longer the principal threat to our future. The overriding threats to this century are climate change, population growth, spreading water shortages and rising food prices,” Brown says.
250 million years ago, this planet suffered the greatest mass extinction of multicellular life in the long history of the planet. The ocean conveyor current stopped. The ocean became anoxic, meaning it had little or no oxygen. Fish died; sulfur producing bacteria thrived. As the anoxic layer of the ocean reached the surface, hydrogen sulfide gas was released into the atmosphere in toxic quantities. The sky turned green. The mass extinction was brought onto land.
95% of all species on the planet died. This was due to global warming.*
I’ve titled this post Misanthropia because I believe that I have every bit as much chance of making these improvements as I do of creating a true Utopia, i.e. none.
Still, I’m going to label each suggestion either plausible or implausible. The plausible changes will be the ones I expect never to have implemented because the Koch brothers and other multi-gazillionaires own all of our politicians and control the whole system by which they are put in place. However, I expect that I would be able to convince most of the so-called 99% that these changes would be good. The implausible are the ones I feel strongly enough about to post despite the extreme likelihood that they are so radical that I couldn’t even convince a significant percentage of the so-called 99%.
Each of the following suggestions or cluster of suggestions are meant to be taken individually. I believe each on its own could help make the U.S. a better country. That said, even were all of these suggestions implemented tomorrow, I do not expect that it would fix all of our problems. I’m not that smart.
Why do repugnicans still bother to pretend that they want to live in a democracy? Why not just violently overthrow the government and make Jesus the king? At least it would be less hypocritical. Of course, Jesus who said “love thy neighbor” and gave health care to the sick without checking for either citizenship or insurance would never have wanted such a thing. And, of course, there would have to be some raving lunatic at the helm claiming to be receiving Jesus’ instructions directly. (Didn’t we have that already for eight years?) But, let’s not quibble about how badly the extremist rethugnicans misinterpret the Bible that they believe to be infallible but have never read.
Let’s just look at the way the party gets whatever they want whether they are in power or not and how they get into power at all.
First take a look at this unconscionable and despicable strategy to take the 2012 presidential election by redistricting a key state. Shockingly, this is actually perfectly legal and constitutional.
The narration is the text of an op ed piece in the Wasthington Post by Bill McKibben. No need to read the text since it’s all in the video with powerful imagery added. Kudos to Stephen Thomson of Plomomedia.com for a great job making this into a powerful video.
Once again, the IPCC estimates are proving to be underestimates of the problem of climate change. That’s what you get with consensus. Yes, we’re confident that the results will be at least as bad as the IPCC forecasts, else some country with financial interests in continuing to burn fossil fuel will reject the statement. But, what we don’t get is the full range of estimates. We get the most watered down statement, not a statement of the greatest odds.
Here’s an interesting tale of two spins. Both of these articles are reporting on the same event, findings released by a Dutch environmental agency that agree with the IPCC conclusions. Strangely though, the two articles are clearly intended to present a very different image.
There are two main points from the findings of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
1) The IPCC is generally correct that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.
2) There are some minor errors, including typographical errors in specific predictions of the IPCC, that “do not affect the whole construction [of the IPCC report].”
I don’t know that I agree with him on all points, especially about other civilizations. But then, he’s Stephen Hawking and I’m not even making mud pies yet.
Also, check out the incredibly impressive Heart of the Adirondacks project in the Adirondack State Park, the largest park in the continental United States at twice the size of Yellowstone.
Posted by Misanthropic Scott 
