Monday, June 23, 2008
Further to: Resetting Earth's thermostat...ho, boy...
To Veronique, Press Relations AEI: See below for what I sent to the LA Times today, it probably won't be published, but thought you'd enjoy! Oh, I copied my blog and several internet groups on the note above the letter to the times...happy to expound, but somehow I doubt you'll be in touch...PLEASE DO SHARE WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR AT LEAST Mr. DeMuth (perhaps I figured his out?), THEY MIGHT FIND THIS ENLIGHTENING...
Hi Sam. Your article fired me up (doesn't take much I suppose). I have an Archaeology degree and have studied paleo weather and climate, amongst a great many other things. I also worked for IBM for 15 years introducing NEW TECHNOLOGY to the marketplace, I know about disruptive tech (spears to PCs)!
Here are two suggestions IF THE AEI IS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SAVING THE PLANET INSTEAD OF SIMPLY OBTAINING RESEARCH MONEY:
1. No longer have corporations be persons before the law. That COULD give us a fighting chance to have rationality actually drive activities that could help.
Doubt the AEI would give that much time on the agenda, since you are apologists for the staus quo, but one can hope.
2. Change cost accounting to represent the TRUE COST of doing business. Petroleum, for example, is priced based on extraction, refining, distribution and profit at each stage, but no where is the cost of the damage burning petroleum does to the environment. Oil ought to be at least $100 per gallon (yeah, OIL not gasoline which would be much higher!) if the true cost of it's use were accounted for...seriously doubt the AEI would support such a relatively "minor" and easy to implement change however...
(Another suggestion is to have the definition of terrorism revert to the Pre-911 "Terrorism - criminal acts committed for political gain"...let police be responsible for terrorists, so we can gut the military budget and use that money to save ourselves...that's not going to happen either...! Instead, based on what I know about Anthropology and our market economy: Military budgets will increase to fight the threat of starving and water needy minions...food wars are inevitable, as the Pentagon's own study indicated back in 2004...the staus quo doesn't accept change easily...)
In reality: humanity is dead man walking and no one wants to admit it...as you mention in your article, the effects have yet to be seen in any significant way (thanks to the natural buffering of several systems), and climate chaos will occur, even if we stop emitting CO2 yesterday, which didn't happen...so, people will continue their profligate waste and energy consumption, cajoled by corporate advertising and whatever else supports our current climatic chaotic economy!)
The COSTS to the economy to actually do things that would help are IMMATERIAL compared to the outcome if there are no people left...however, as you also mention, inertia will prevail and nothing will stop the inevitable grisly end. (See 1 and 2 above to find ways to 'force' change...)
Having no children as a Personal Voluntary Decision is the only MORAL choice.
Bringing more people onto the planet means more will be around at the end.
To reduce the inevitable suffering of those around at the end, it is best that there are as few people as possible.
The only moral way to do that is if everyone stops having kids, voluntarily.
Sounds radical? Perhaps. We live in radical times...70,000 years ago +/- there was ONE EXTENDED FAMILY OF HUMANS FROM WHOSE GENES WE ALL DESCEND. Simply reducing our population will not work, since our entire human culture is based on overcoming nature. I don't consider us a "cancer" on the planet, although some do...we're more like KUDZU or ballast mussels, an "alien invader specie" in almost all ecosystems...
If you can, please do show me ONE thing that gives you hope for the (long term, say 250 years) future of humanity on the planet...I'll be surprised and shocked...China is now relaxing the one child rules for those affected by the earthquake...and that was the ONLY policy on the planet (not good, since not voluntary) that even attempted to slow population growth...
As we Volunteers in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement like to say: "Live Long and Die Off!"
--------------------
Here's an attempt to justify BIG BUCKS to "Study...While Rome Burns"!
I'll just scratch the surface on the effect of a reduction in Solar albedo, like, how will plankton react to not having as much sunlight at some depth...I copied the author of the article on this note, he really ought to check out www.vhemt.org. And, he really ought to know better than to hawk hogwash...but, as I point out, he's human, and wants MONEY to study stuff...Let's hope he's childfree!
My letter to the LA Times editors:
Samuel Thernstrom wrote:
"There are two concerns about geo-engineering". How about 1000 concerns? "Global Warming" is one symptom of Human Caused Climate Chaos. Treating "warming" alone ignores the chemistry of the systems that we continue to disrupt.
He proposes another "disruptive technology", a very human response. Technology evolved alongside our biological selves to overwhelm nature since there have been humans on the planet. For example, Innuit people didn't evolve in the Arctic, they used their culture and technology to thrive there!
As he suggests, technology is ruining nature, but Mr. Thernstrom seems to believe that we can RUN nature, if we just use a little more technology...The "elephant in the room" is too many people. I have none, neither should you.
Cheers,
Frish
Resetting Earth's thermostat
Samuel Thernstrom wrote:
"There are two concerns about geo-engineering". How about 1000 concerns? "Global Warming" is one symptom of Human Caused Climate Chaos. Treating "warming" alone ignores the chemistry of the systems that we continue to disrupt.
He proposes another "disruptive technology", a very human response. Technology evolved alongside our biological selves to overwhelm nature since there have been humans on the planet. For example, Innuit people didn't evolve in the Arctic, they used their culture and technology to thrive there!
As he suggests, technology is ruining nature, but Mr. Thernstrom seems to believe that we can RUN nature, if we just use a little more technology...The "elephant in the room" is too many people. I have none, neither should you.
--
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
