jedrider wrote:Well, I wanted to start a Good News thread, but I have none
Newfie wrote:
So, if one holds that we need to reduce population then.....
That the Ebola epidemic fizzled was bad news
That Brazil and California are suffering droughts is good news
Isis is also good news for they kill a lot of folks and will eventually cause much more death
The Mediterian refuge news, that thousands are drowning is good news.
So you see, it's all a matter of perspective and priorities.
Ibon wrote:Newfie wrote:
So, if one holds that we need to reduce population then.....
That the Ebola epidemic fizzled was bad news
That Brazil and California are suffering droughts is good news
Isis is also good news for they kill a lot of folks and will eventually cause much more death
The Mediterian refuge news, that thousands are drowning is good news.
So you see, it's all a matter of perspective and priorities.
I wonder to what degree these sentiments will one day become mainstream and replace the politically correct humanism that treats all 7.3 billion humans along with their 20 billion domestic dogs and cats as sacred souls all deserving the right of a long and abundant life.
You tighten the constraints through droughts and famine and allow environmental instabilities to release pandemics and it wont take much for bioregions, nations, continents, races, religions, to start putting up their fences.
dohboi wrote:"survivors will be determined by their ability to control the circumstances to some degree"
Exactly, so mainly the wealthy and, as you point out, those with the greatest gun power, will prevail--or rather, the wealthiest in the countries with the greatest gun power will prevail.
Since the US spends more on defense than then next, what is it now, 180 countries combined, the US elites (but not necessarily most of the rest of us) will mostly survive. Hence perhaps their general reluctance mostly to take any of these things particularly seriously.
I do agree with Newf here that we are much more solidly f'ing the rest of the planet, especially the other large mammals without which the ecosystems they inhabit pretty much fall apart (the main point of the linked article in my post at the top of the thread).
dohboi wrote:"So who in this world would you "logically" cut loose"
The logical answer is the ~20% of the global population who is doing and has done ~80% of the harm.
But it is the 20% (or really, the .01%) at the top who are mostly calling the shots.
It's the old problem of belling the cat, as usual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_cat
One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic...
dohboi wrote:And yeah, if what I say seems oppressive to some over-privileged white guys, I have not one bit of problem with that.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests