6th Mass Extinction, Capitalism, Carbon Man, Climate Change, Collapse of Industrial Civilization, Consumerism, Cyanobacteria, Ecological Overshoot, Empire, Environmental Collapse, Evolutionary Dead End, Extinction of Man, Mass Die Off, Peak Oil
The detritus of distant planets hurdled through the darkness of space on a one-way collision course with a young, cloudless planet devoid of life. Unceremoniously crashing into this planet’s surface, these rocks from the heavens carried a gift –amino acids, the seeds of life. Anaerobic microorganisms soon emerged in the greenish-red, anoxic oceans of the planet. For the longest time these primitive life forms thrived in the ocean depths, the only place safe from the deadly ultraviolet radiation of that planet’s sun. But then by some misfortune of the cosmos, their reign abruptly ended as an oxygen-producing bacteria (later to be known as the cyanobacteria) created the planet’s first great extinction event by wiping out the anaerobic life forms. You see, free oxygen happened to be toxic to these anaerobic organisms and, subsequently, photosynthetic organisms took their place, pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and filling it with oxygen which would eventually allow life to expand onto newly formed continents.
The planet fluctuated between pulses of glaciation and warming as the tug-of-war between fire and ice raged for aeons. Volcanos erupted, the atmosphere warmed, and oceans grew to swallow up land, only to slowly recede back again as water became locked up in glaciers. During this volatile time, the chemistry of the oceans changed from an anoxic environment rich in hydrogen sulfide to one in which oxygen penetrated its deepest waters. The stage had finally been set for multicellular animals to evolve from this rich aquatic oasis, and life slowly crept onto land from its watery cradle. Complex organisms of all shape and size sprang up over time to walk, swim, and fly, but the planet’s restive climatic system would, on occasion, still open its jaws to swallow up nearly all plant and beast across the globe. Continents collided with each other, pushing the planet’s crust upward into mountain ridges. Ocean and air currents reconfigured their paths, and ice age cycles came and went.
After nearly 4.5 billion years of planetary evolution there stood upright a creature whose cleverness and adaptability far surpassed any living thing that had ever existed. Its kind lived and hunted in groups using tools to catch and kill from a distance, and wherever it roamed, waves of extinct species were left in its wake. The success of the tribe expanded and so did its numbers, spreading from continent to continent wherever it could get a foothold. Its tools became more sophisticated and it learned to cultivate food in one area rather than nomadically searching for it. Societies with sophisticated social structures and cultures developed within these fixed settlements, and from them grew empires with armies which fought with one another for resources and slaves. These civilizations had their own growth and decay timeline, fading into ruins after becoming overly complex and corrupt while overshooting their ecological threshold. But from the ashes of one would always arise the next to build upon the collective knowledge of the species.
It would be the compressed dead matter of ancient life that would truly propel this species to heady heights of technological and material wealth. The steel-and-concrete of megacities rose up to the sky and millions flocked to them to work, live, and die in their cold geometry. A constant barrage of digital lights, pictures, and slogans kept the masses beguiled by illusionary riches. The city was a labyrinth of dead ends and a house of mirrors, but the minions were told that if only they stayed in the game and ran a bit harder, they could reach that ‘dangling carrot’. After millenia of evolution, the one species at the top of the food chain, a.k.a. carbon man, was now ensnared by its own intricate web of myths and outright lies that it had spun for itself. Unable to see, speak or hear the truth, this oddity of nature was quickly losing ground to reality and on the fast track to joining all those other living things it had pushed over the cliff of extinction. For all carbon man’s cunning and ingenuity, his actions and behavior were much worse than that of the primordial cyanobacteria mentioned earlier in this planet’s history. This time the deadly pollutant from a single organism’s activities that would cause the Final Great Extinction Event was not O2, but rather CO2.
Carbon man’s modern set of living arrangements known as capitalist industrial civilization was not, in all reality, taking its passengers down a road of enlightenment and progress, but down an ever-darkening path of barbarity and death. All its vainglorious achievements and techtopian visions of the future were but hot air from a species drowning in its own propaganda and toxic waste as it raced towards an evolutionary dead-end. For if the species were able to recognize and acknowledge that industrial civilization’s own waste was creating its very demise while at the same time being powerless to do anything about it, then the end result for this hubristic species would be no different from that of the unthinking and rudimentary bacteria of the planet’s first life forms.
Kevin Moore said:
I think there should be a ‘perhaps’ in the first sentence and the second sentence. Nobody really knows, and there are still many competing theories concerning the origin of life on Earth. Unfortunately all the evidence was destroyed long ago. .
As for the rest, yes, absolutely..
Oh let’s not be nitpicky. Let’s go with generally accepted thought. 🙂
It’s not so much the beginning that is important, but the ending.
Indeed, bacteria we are, or at least close cousins. Trillions of cells stuck together trying to make a go of it in unison. Just because we can make recordings of the environment in our gray matter, reduce reality to an ever greater level of resolution to be labeled and categorized by other parts of the brain, does not negate the fact that our needs are the same needs as those of the single cell, except for sex, which has been reserved for a specialized population of gametes. So we have names applied by our brains to things in the environment that have discernible outlines and seem separate from the rest (even though they’re not). For instance, consider the statement, “I am going to shoot a rabbit tomorrow and cook and eat it. Would you like to join me?” This communication is like hormonal communication and neural communication amongst cells. The sounds come in the ears and become neural, the images elicited by the words pop into your head and you can now coordinate activity or not at the macro scale. This communicative information is separate and distinct from information used to make tools. Our perception and communication was adequate for our survival prior to our technological outburst but is completely inadequate for seeing the important relationships lacking discernible outlines.
So what we have is a bunch of cells called an ape whose overriding goal is to shovel food into the pie hole for the benefit of the trillions of mini-me’s, to find another ape to share gametes with, with great gaps in perception and an elementary reductionist communication system.
Oh yea, we’re basically irrational, delusional, violent and in overshoot too.
“..a creature whose cleverness and adaptability far surpassed any living thing that had ever existed.”
I guess we adapted & are ‘clevering’ ourselves out of existence.
When I’m compared to a bacteria or virus,I take it as a compliment.
I’ve been called much worse. rolf
Love the hominid with the smart phone. I wonder when one of those clever little Silicone Valley monkeys is gonna come up with a NTE app?
That’s always been the problem with the comparison to humans and bacteria – it’s unfair! We’re hampered by these flawed “brains” that run on some program called “intelligence” (which of course it’s anything but) while they just do their thing, oblivious as far as we “know.”
It seems we’re the oblivious ones though. It’s all convoluted, upside out and inside down. We struggle for millions of years to even become ambulatory; then some more millennia while we develop language and, shit it took centuries just to figure out a symbol for nothing, then nothing became something – a ‘number,’ then we somehow went on to math and science (I think we were visited by aliens who implanted some of this processing ability, even though it’s genetically possible and probable) – finding out how it all works – and thereby getting the slightest inkling, we’re like a15 year old with a GTO (showing my age there) and we’re off to the races killing everything we touch (sooner or later).
Somehow we lacked reflection and the ability to limit our species in any way. People toil away their hours so they can pay for cancer-dispensing cigarettes and toxic alcohol, be blinded and stunned into a non-thinking stupor for most of their lives by distractions of all kinds and all the while don’t notice that the streams, rivers and oceans are all polluted, and all the trees are in the process of dying. It’s mind-bogglingly incredible. We live in suspended animation – our minds conjure images that appeal to us and keep us doing what we’re doing without a second thought.
If you happen to notice, you almost have to keep it to yourself or you’re labeled an outcast, a “rabble-rouser” and socially kept at arms length, while the law keeps an eye on you.
Great post Mike.
James, brilliant comment.
It’s the little things in life. It was the little things that gave us life and it is the little things that will take it away.
More fancy colors….
UN report dials up humanity’s global warming risks; scientist says ‘We’re all sitting ducks’
…”Things are worse than we had predicted” in 2007, when the group of scientists last issued this type of report, said report co-author Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development at the Independent University in Bangladesh. “We are going to see more and more impacts, faster and sooner than we had anticipated.”
The problems have gotten so bad that the panel had to add a new and dangerous level of risks. In 2007, the biggest risk level in one key summary graphic was “high” and colored blazing red. The latest report adds a new level, “very high,” and colors it deep purple.
You might as well call it a “horrible” risk level, said van Aalst: “The horrible is something quite likely, and we won’t be able to do anything about it.”
The report predicts that the highest level of risk would first hit plants and animals, both on land and the acidifying oceans…
Kevin Moore said:
What was linked by Robin Westenra was laughable……half a metre sea level rise under low emissions scenario instead of the 59cm that was being bandied about last time (and we have the high emissions scenario)……5 or 10% increase in flooding (UK had 3 times normal rainfall in January)….more droughts….. (and we in NZ are into our second significant drought in two years)…… then there is the nonsense about dealing with emissions by planting trees whilst encouraging actual emissions of CO2 to rise. And what happens to those trees? hey are cut down using chain saws, transported using diesel for house construction and export. And an awful lot of paper that will quickly return semi-sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere. And toilet paper to add to our emissions profile..
More bullshit than I can stand, as officialdom attempts to maintain business-as-usual and ‘not scare the horses’.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday officially released its report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, which identifies eight key risks that will affect New Zealand and Australia as temperatures continue to rise in step with increased greenhouse gas emissions
The report is the second part of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment, the most comprehensive assessment of the world’s vulnerabilities to climate change, and it warns that adapting to future impacts in this region could mean having to translocate industries and giving up on protecting certain areas from sea level rise and excessive heat.
Wildfires are expected to cause damage to settlements and ecosystems, economic losses and risks to human life in many parts of New Zealand as a consequence of drier and warmer conditions.
One of the lead authors for the report’s chapter on New Zealand and Australia, NIWA climate scientist Andrew Tait, says wildfire is already a major issue in Australia, but New Zealand now also faces a higher risk.
“Large areas of the country which have traditionally not been high-risk areas, Southland and Waikato for example, due to a warming environment leading to more evapotranspiration and a drying of the soils and the vegetation are going to be more at risk from wildfires as we move through the century.”
Droughts will be more intense.
The chapter’s coordinating lead author, Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre deputy director Andy Reisinger, says wildfires could be more destructive in New Zealand’s as our native forests are not adapted to it.
“The other point is of course that much of how New Zealand has dealt with rising greenhouse gas emissions so far was to plant forestry that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, and it’s ironic that there’s now a rising risk in releasing such stored carbon in wildfires.”
Rainfall predictions for New Zealand are for more rain in the south and west, and drier conditions in the north and east. Andrew Tait says the main pattern is associated with a likely change in westerlies over the country, which are projected to increase mostly in the spring and in winter.
“Some of our large South Island catchments have their headwaters in the Alps where we are expecting mean rainfall and the extreme events associated with warmer temperatures to increase, leading to larger floods, in the order of 5 to 10 per cent larger by the middle of the century, to what we’ve been used to in the past.”
Sea level rise is expected to reach about half a metre by the end of the century under low-emission scenarios, but Dr Reisinger says even that will be a challenge for New Zealand, with most of our cities and infrastructure built on flood plains and near river mouths.
“There is scope to adapt but it would require what we call transformative adaptation, which simply means giving up protecting everything but deciding that some areas cannot be protected and we have to think about shifting some communities away from the coast over time. And that would mean major social upheaval.”
However, there will be some benefits from climate change for New Zealand. Warmer winters will mean lower heating bills and might reduce winter illnesses, forest growth is expected to increase, and some parts of New Zealand can expect stronger spring pasture growth.
An increase in heat waves, constraints on water resources and loss of agricultural production represent three risk areas that apply to both countries, but will have a more immediate and more damaging impact in Australia.
For example, the Murray Darling Basin could lose 70 per cent or more of its current food production on a regular basis towards the end of the century.
Two other key risks – the loss of montane ecosystems and changes to the structure of coral reefs – apply only to Australia.
Regional average temperatures in this region have already increased by 0.9 degrees over the last century, and sea levels have risen by 20cm – and the report predicts this will continue.
“It’s virtually certain that the region will continue to warm throughout the 21st century and there the projected changes are between 1.5 degrees more for the most stringent global scenario for reducing greenhouse gas emissions up to more than 4 degrees warmer than at present,” says Dr Reisinger.
i agree Kevin, some of his posts are better than others. It’s the same with the commenters there (of which i’m one) some of who seem to not have gotten the memo yet that we’re done.
This 3200 Year Old Tree is So Massive, It’s Never Been Captured in a Single Image…Until Now
It takes a special kind of tree to have a nickname like “The President”. The giant sequoia stands 247 feet tall and is an estimated 3,200 years old. The trunk measures 27 feet across and, between the base and the highest peak, there are an estimated two billion needles.
Until now, the tree had never been photographed in its entirety. A team of photographers from National Geographic worked with scientists from California’s Sequoia National Park to try to be the first.
It took an intricate set of pulleys and levers to scale the tree, which one scientist argues is the largest in the world (if you take into account width). After stitching together 126 separate photos, we are left with this mind-blowing portrait of “The President” captured in a single photo for the first time.
Fantastic pic Mike! Your other links are always informative too – nice job.
Kevin Moore said:
“We can combine sustainable development and climate change adaptation into a vision for a world that’s advancing … A better world,” Field said.
There it is again, all the crap about sustainable development, progress and a better world.
Damn. I keep forgetting that the meaning of sustainable has been changed to mean ‘can be maintained for a short times whilst promoting meltdown of society and meltdown of the environment’..
I suppose what we are witnessing in many locations at the moment is a trial run for adapting to living without water, living without trees, living without food, living without homes.
Max and Stacy talking about young people living without hope: #581
Yep – I see it all the time too and wonder if (because this “disclaimer” or “out” is so prevalent) authors won’t get their work published unless it has a hopey-changey ending – as if there’s always more time to solve our “temporary” climate-change problems with some as-yet-undiscovered technology or whatever. Always kicking the can down the road – hey, the calamity isn’t HERE yet. . . . like we can just side-step any problems at the last second.
Good stuff as always, Mike. Who is it talking in the ‘American Consumer Cultural Disconnect from Reality’ clip?
From the documentary ‘Blind Spot’.
Dr. Jason Bradford describes the cultural disconnect prevalent in the U.S. consumer culture. This culture is predicated on the need for unlimited resources, although this is impossible in a world with limits. After generations of seeing the world as limitless, the ability to accept that the world doesn’t have unlimited resources for such a lifestyle is seen as heresy. This mindset stretches through all levels of education to all ethnicities to all class levels to all religions here in Western Culture. The cognitive dissonance is most astounding.
Aptitude Design said:
Well, nothing new here, but there are a few Heads of State who are still in La La Land about this, Including the Market Fundamentalists here in Oz. Must one cure them with a quick dose of lead, or simply await their preternatural demise? Either way, it will be a hard road ahead.
Richard Heinberg on Snake Oil: How Fracking’s False Promise Imperils Our Future
(1:41:31 video – well worth the listen when you have time)
Ernst Mayr, an evolutionary biologist, once told Carl Sagan, an astrophysicist, that human intelligence was a lethal mutation.
Not really a lethal mutation, but rather a course of evolutionary change which could not be resisted and apparently cannot be resisted even today. The energy was so available, unexploited, and the tools came naturally. We never exercised anything near a conscious choice, we just evolved into using them not knowing what we were embarking upon. Like a railway stub track that just comes to a dead end, human civilization will come to a dead end too, especially since it’s unlikely we’ll “adapt” to the environmental changes underway. Adaptation requires energy and you don’t adapt to the environment in “Stage 1” by throwing it into “Stage 2” with the energy you use trying to adapt to “Stage 1” conditions.
By the way, you still working on that epic essay. Can’t wait to read it.
It’s a testament to human selfishness that none of the academics have produced a clear overview of the phenomenon of civilization. They’re too damned busy making money to spend any time thinking. They’re good at describing and measuring the narrow spectrum of their respective fields but fail to probe deeply enough in multiple areas to gain the necessary perspective. They’re doers because “doing” makes money. Thinking, especially about things that cannot be engineered or built, made into some practical application and/or appended to the bottom of a curriculum vitae, is outside their experience. They’re also accomplished in the herd behavior of beard cultivation, fuzzy oracles that may be fondled in wanting moments. It is only a matter of time before the bearded lady shows up. My epic, more like a synopsis, is building and I hope shall vitiate any succor for the willfully ignorant.
I hesitate to criticize Ernst Mayr without some reference. He is called “the Darwin of the 20th Century: “Over the course of his lifetime, Ernst Mayr received every award possible for a scientist in his field, including the National Medal of Science, the International Prize and the Balzan Prize. There is no Nobel Prize for evolutionary biology. Mayr once observed that Charles Darwin himself would not have been eligible for a Nobel Prize. Mayr officially retired in 1975, but remained at Harvard as Professor Emeritus. He published more than 200 articles after he retired, more than most scientists publish in a lifetime. He was still publishing when he died at the age of 100 in 2005.” (Mayr Bio). Both ulitmat suicide and Ecocide are quite lethal. It is just that it is difficult to fomulate a hypothesis where some individuals behave better than the groups who run the show because they do not have the lethal intelligence.
Chomsky is great and we’re fortunate to have his voice. But he, as should we all, not be above having our assumptions questioned. Certainly there is something real called consuming for consuming’s sake. But everyone needing to own their own home in order to avoid paying rent contributes greatly. The more property one owns, the more stuff is required to maintain it. And if consuming is an escape, why not ask (escape from what?). And why just pick on the consumption addiction, why not every other one, including work-a-hol-ism which also can lead to overproduction and over consumption.
Chomsky is a brave warrior when it comes to criticizing the system, but seemingly not so much in leaving that system and creating something else; he and most others. Not that I think anyone (should) do anything per se. But this is a discussion about (problems) and I assume “problems” seek solutions; even theoretical ones.
Lilly Tomlin: “Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.”
I posted this before, but this time with a different message…
Great picture and message, definitely a keepers. Ah, the poor left, never has been able to reach a consensus on fundamental truths. You mentioned that word “truth” in this post.
Not reaching a consensus on truth is actually quite convenient, for without this no action can or need be taken.
Another great picture commentary. Absoulutly. Sooo……
It seems painfully obvious to us, but apparently not anyone else. At least not so as to motivate action. Sort of like the video of the guy at the end of your post. I want to checkout his organization. It looks like the “local economy” thing. Great. Except for one (minor?) detail. Land, ownership and the natural resources…. which most don’t have any access to; as soon as this critical issue is raised you’ll find yourself smack dab in the communal.
I’d say, why wait for the inevitable; just go there now, we’re going to have to anyway, eventually.
An unknown singer performing a cover better than the original…
Kevin Moore said:
I do what I can, knowing it is futile.
Yesterday I had an extended discussion with the one district councillor (out of 14) who is capable of understanding such matters as the relative warming factor for methane, EROEI, the geopolitics of energy depletion etc. That was after I had called into the NPDC building to speak with the CEO and having got nowhere on that mission hurriedly wrote the following for delivery to her:
‘Following your outrageous threats and obviously criminal behaviour, I have discussed the noncompliance of NPDC with NZ Government Statutes with a barrister.
At this stage I will not proceed further because it is clear that you are in the process of ‘hanging’ yourself and I do not wish to waste precious resources bringing forward your inevitable demise.
I am forced to come to the front desk because phone calls and emails elicit no response.
Kevin Moore 31st March 2014′
Barbara McKerrow will take no notice, of course, and will continue to call the ‘tourism brochure with the funny numbers inserted’ a plan for the future of the district.
I shared the note with the aforementioned councillor, and discussed the processes by which the machine of local government is able to ride roughshod over the community, one of which is: ‘Thank you for your submission; we look forward to seeing you again next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that …………..’
He is still at the bargaining stage on the journey that leads through grief and depression to beyond depression and into the Twilight Zone.
I shared all the latest news with a concerned citizen, including the imminent bulldozing of the biggest privately-owned orchard and market garden in the city for housing development, the owner unable to continue the operation and unable to find a buyer (other than for land clearance).
By the way, another day of warm dry weather yesterday and the same today. The signs warning of the danger resulting from mal-operation of the sewage treatment plant are still on display.
A march through town of about placard-carrying anti-TPP folk at the weekend is a step up from the handful at the meeting a month ago. In practice, the NZ dollar going through the roof is going to make trade ‘difficult’. (approaching 90c US, 100c A, 100 C, 54p, 70 E, though it would not surprise me to see a slam to assists speculators make some quick profits.). Only the Chinese and Russians seem to have any real wealth these days, hence the delegation from China seen entering the NPDC building yesterday, and I don’t think they come under the .US-sponsored TPP.
I wonder how ‘interesting’ this is all going to get before ‘authority’ loses all credibility.
Kevin Moore said:
Mike, your comment about the ending being more important than the beginning reminds me of the episode of Li’l’ Bush in which George, Dick, Condi and Rumi plan a hunting expedition.
I don’t remember it exactly,, but it was something along the line of;:
“Let’s go and kill a bear!”
:”Can we torture it for a few days before we kill it?”
Kevin Moore said:
A refreshing breath of near-honesty from the NZ Herald (champion of climate change denial a decade ago).
From Desdemona Despair this morning (4/1):
New IPCC report: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability – Summary for policymakers and FAQ
The report went on to warn of insufficient food that would come with climate change. It said: “The poorest people in the world who have virtually nothing to do with causing global warning will be high on the list of victims as climatic disruptions intensify.” The report stated that poor countries would need as “much as $100 billion a year to offset the effects of climate change; they are now getting, at best, a few billion dollars a year in such aid from rich countries.”
What happened to the main report shows that, as this blog has continually argued, capitalism cannot solve the developing crisis of climate change. The $100 billion figure was mentioned in the full report, but when it came to the 48 page executive summary to be read by the leaders of the world’s main capitalist powers, it was removed. They were not going to put their name to that. In other words, the world’s top capitalist leaders were not prepared to commit themselves to the $100 billion a year. The capitalist class world wide are addicted to profits. What is an addiction? It is when people, or in this case a class, cannot stop an activity which destroys themselves and all around them. Capitalism’s addiction to profit is destroying the planet and will destroy life on earth as we know it. Capitalism’s profit addiction means that it cannot deal with this catastrophe of climate change and pollution which threatens life on earth as we know it. To preserve the planet as we know it, capitalism has to be overthrown…
Boiled down to basics, triage is the fundamental government policy.
“One important point is that the natural environment is sensitive to the evolution of microbial life,” said Daniel Rothman, an MIT geophysics< professor who led the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The best example of that, Professor Rothman said, was the advent about 2.5 billion years ago of bacteria engaging in photosynthesis, which paved the way for the later appearance of animals by belching fantastic amounts of oxygen into earth’s atmosphere.
Methanosarcina is still found today in places like oil wells, trash dumps and the guts of animals like cows.
Alarmingly, the same effects are starting to happen today as a result of global warming caused by man-made carbon emissions.
Analysis of geological carbon deposits reveals a significant boost in levels of carbon-containing gases – either carbon dioxide or methane – at the time of the mass extinction.
But volcanic eruptions alone could never have produced the amount of carbon laid down in rock sediments during this period, the researchers say.
“A rapid initial injection of carbon dioxide from a volcano would be followed by a gradual decrease,” Dr Fournier said.
“Instead, we see the opposite: a rapid, continuing increase.
“That suggests a microbial expansion. The growth of microbial populations is among the few phenomena capable of increasing carbon production exponentially, or even faster.”
Most microbes (bacteria, viruses, etc.) are beneficial to the environment and to their hosts (“If not for a virus, none of us would ever be born“). An elite few, say 1%, are dangerous pathogens. So, the analogy of the 1% causing problems for the 99% goes deep into the bacterial world too. Microbes do a better job of dealing with their 1% than we do.
Tuesday, 1 April 24 [from ENE News]
Michiu Kaku on Fukushima
TV: Fukushima crisis “much more severe than we’re led to believe”
•Small quake could tip over reactors and start it all over again
•Japan “selling soul to devil” if they restart nuclear plants (VIDEO)
Chris Hedges Part I: Crisis Cults and the Collapse of Industrial Civilization
Chris Hedges Part II: The Military Mind & the Antidote to Defeatism
Michiu Kaku spoke about more than Fukushima during that interview. Each time I see this guy my mind starts to think of a cartoon mad-scientist or dastardly villain from the silent screen era rubbing his hands together, cackling gleefully about his plan to rule the world as his helpless victims look on tied to the train tracks. More dramatically than that I can’t help but think of Josef Mengele while listening to Kaku’s projections for a “brain network” and transferring our minds up to the cloud. Watching Martin’s producer interview this guy, I could swear the young dude was drooling as Kaku spoke about all these great new toys.
At one time in my life I believed, supported, and was completely enthralled with concepts of terraforming other worlds, building space stations, and traveling around the galaxy. Today, I find the future coming out of Kaku’s mouth to be horrifying.
Seems so far from working on the land to grow food. There’s no mention of how are all these gadgets going to be built on a planet with diminishing resources, what effects mining, processing and transporting all these things will have on other species and the environment. As I’m constantly being told from many people, “It’s all good!”
I’ve wondered if Abbey Martin is having some sort of reaction to having Guy McPherson on the show. In the last few weeks she’s had a couple of people on the show who are truly hopeful about the future. Tom Weiss who seems to believe we still have time to change our course regarding Climate Change (hey,that’s his job) and Lee Camp on who is another person addicted to technology that dehumanizes us even more than we already are. In both cases Martin appears on screen to be a technophile. Is what I’m seeing from on screen real or is she just trying her best to fill screen time?
I come away from segments like this questioning my own sanity. Could Kaku be right. Are we heading to the year 2525? Will Man survive? It’s not a world that seems any more attractive to me than the one we seem to be heading towards.
I agree PMB, Kaku seems a little cucoo here. I think the scientists that know what’s occurring (notice Kaku downplayed Fuk radiation in the food system and then started back peddling when the obvious connection to marine life came to mind) are going to go insane eventually, since all their discoveries being co-opted and confiscated by the Military/Industrial machine are what got us into this mess.
Despite the source, his guest has credibility (imho).
(26 min. video) Max Keiser on Alex Jones Show
Judge said du Pont heir ‘will not fare well’ in prison
A Superior Court judge who sentenced a wealthy du Pont heir to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter noted in her order that he “will not fare well” in prison and needed treatment instead of time behind bars, court records show.
Judge Jan Jurden’s sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV suggested that she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards was a rare and puzzling rationale, several criminal justice authorities in Delaware said. Some also said her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is a justification typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.
Richards’ 2009 rape case became public this month after attorneys for his ex-wife Tracy filed a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the abuse of his daughter.
The fact that Jurden expressed concern that prison wasn’t right for Richards came as a surprise to defense lawyers and prosecutors who consider her a tough sentencing judge. Several noted that prison officials can put inmates in protective custody if they are worried about their safety, noting that child abusers are sometimes targeted by other inmates.
“It’s an extremely rare circumstance that prison serves the inmate well,” said Delaware Public Defender Brendan J. O’Neill, whose office represents defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. “Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn’t proven to be true in most circumstances.”
O’Neill said he and his deputies have often argued that a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he has never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.” [there’s more]
“All you had to go on in 1990 with Codeine’s Frigid Stars was a shot in negative of star formations on the front, and a picture of someone lying on a bed covered in coats on the back. Some song titles. That was it. Codeine’s sound, whispers, barely heard words, slow gorgeous songs of dissonance and darkness, disencumbered from any known media we could find and put only with hugely suggestive images of its own choosing, became overwhelmingly intense, unbearable to play when actually sad, beautiful in its sadness.
As far away from traditional rock & roll heat as a post-stellar universe is to the Big Bang. And swiftly, after the initial shock of how they played became something you lived with and loved within, they suggested altogether different trajectories and impulses behind American art than you’d been tutored in.
They weren’t exactly a way of life. But they were a whole new way of getting used to dying.”
My Tragic End
Come bail me out
I’m sinking fast
But I don’t think I should trouble you tonight
My day was long
And full of traps
But I don’t think I should trouble you tonight
For a while I walked too far in someone else’s shoes
Walked so far I couldn’t find my own
For a while I kept it steady but I’m destined to let it slide
It’s no surprise
Come dance around my tragic end
I don’t think I can stomach this no more
I won’t keep you long or drag it out
I don’t think I can stomach this no more
Come bail me out….
Excerpt from The Unreality Industry: The Deliberate Manufacturing of Falsehood and what It Is Doing to Our Lives…
Paul W said:
May or may not be interesting to this crowd: talking heads and climate change on Charlie Rose. Still too much optimism, but at least there is mention of “collapse”.
Selfies Linked to Narcissism, Addiction and Mental Illness, Say Scientists
The growing trend of taking smartphone selfies is linked to mental health conditions that focus on a person’s obsession with looks.
According to psychiatrist Dr David Veal: “Two out of three of all the patients who come to see me with Body Dysmorphic Disorder since the rise of camera phones have a compulsion to repeatedly take selfies.
“Cognitive behavioural therapy is used to help a patient to recognise the reasons for his or her compulsive behaviour and then to learn how to moderate it,” he told the Sunday Mirror.
19-year-old Danny Bowman’s selfie addiction spiralled out of control, spending ten hours a day taking up to 200 snaps of himself on his iPhone.
The teenager is believed to be the UK’s first selfie addict and has had therapy to treat his technology addiction as well as OCD and Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
Part of his treatment at the Maudsley Hospital in London included taking away his iPhone for intervals of 10 minutes, which increased to 30 minutes and then an hour.
“It was excruciating to begin with but I knew I had to do it if I wanted to go on living,” he told the Sunday Mirror.
Public health officials in the UK announced that addiction to social media such as Facebook and Twitter is an illness and more than 100 patients sought treatment every year.
“Selfies frequently trigger perceptions of self-indulgence or attention-seeking social dependence that raises the damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t spectre of either narcissism or low self-esteem,” said Pamela Rutledge in Psychology Today.
The addiction to selfies has also alarmed health professionals in Thailand. “To pay close attention to published photos, controlling who sees or who likes or comments them, hoping to reach the greatest number of likes is a symptom that ‘selfies’ are causing problems,” said Panpimol Wipulakorn, of the Thai Mental Health Department.
The doctor believed that behaviours could generate brain problems in the future, especially those related to lack of confidence.
The word “selfie” was elected “Word of the Year 2013” by the Oxford English Dictionary. It is defined as “a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically with a smartphone or webcam and uploaded to a social media website”.
McPherson at MultiCulti, March 30, 2014 – esp interesting Q&A at 43 min.
[audio src="http://firstname.lastname@example.org/2838-1-Guy_McPherson.mp3" /]
My little takeaway video:
“Yes, there were movies being made about climate change as early as the 1950s. Dave Roberts has a great column in Grist today about the short memory we have in American political culture, and how this applies especially to climate ‘scandals‘ and ‘controversies’. He points out that though oil and coal lobbying groups–and the corporate-friendly politicians that are influenced by them–would like you to think otherwise, scientific evidence for climate change is far from new. It’s not some radical new idea borne in the 90s–it’s been studied for decades before that. For proof, here’s a clip from a 1958 (!) film produced by Frank Capra (!!) about global warming that’s surprisingly prophetic. Video after the jump.Called “the Unchained Goddess,” this clip is from a film about weather and climate produced by Capra (“It’s a Wonderful Life”) who created a series of movies about science in the day.
Here’s the NY Times’ Andrew Revkin on the video, and what it signifies:
So what’s the takeaway from this? Here’s Roberts: “it was only when the modern corporatist right’s political agenda was threatened that it suddenly decided the science was suspect. If our political culture had a memory longer than a gnat’s, we wouldn’t be taking them so seriously every time they come up with a new pseudo-scandal.” – link
Kevin Moore said:
As I understand matters, by the mid-60s the science clearly indicated massive problems in the future as a consequences of burning coal and oil. Key findings in the presidential task force were deleted and ‘very likely’ was changed to ‘may’ because the industrialists were terrified of loss of profit, and ‘what was good for General Motors was good for America’.
With many regions of the US now suffering frequently from extreme weather conditions and climate stability apparently gone for ever, and General Motors practically down the drain, so much for that narrative.
Just think what a different world we would be living in now if the original findings of the task force had not been tampered with.
Kevin Moore said:
I need to get a job as a journalist; I can then get paid a handsome salary for saying the same thing over and over again in a single report. (Even better, a highly-paid job in local government for talking/writing absolute garbage.).
England braced for ‘very high’ levels of air pollution this week as dust lands from Sahara
Wednesday 02 April 2014
The East of England and Midlands were the worst-affected areas on Tuesday, but large swathes of England and Wales will see high levels of pollution on Wednesday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said.
The elevated pollution levels have been caused by a combination of light south-easterly winds, the continental air flow and dust which has blown up from the Sahara desert, a spokeswoman said.
“The current elevated pollution levels over parts of the UK are caused by light winds allowing the build-up of pollution, plus dust from the Sahara contributing to pollution levels,” the Defra forecast said.
Experts were anticipating “high” or “very high” air pollution levels across much of England and Wales on Wednesday.
And the high levels of pollution were expected to continue across East Anglia and the Midlands on Thursday, but the problem should ebb away by Friday.
Last weekend, some people found their cars to be covered in a light coating of red dust. The Met Office said that a large amount of sand and dust was swept up by storm winds in the Sahara Desert.
Experts said that the airborne particles of dust were blown north to the UK where they combined with our warm air and were deposited during showers.
A Defra spokeswoman said: “The high level of air pollution this week is due to a combination of local emissions, light winds, pollution from the continent and dust blown over from the Sahara.
“We want to keep improving air quality and have introduced a new five-day forecast service in addition to investing heavily in local and transport initiatives to tackle this issue head-on.”
(Improving air quality by building roads, motorways and airports, increasing the population, reducing the arable land and woodland areas, fracking, raising the rate of emissions of CO2, CH4 and particulate matter ……..)
In the next week or so we’ll be privileged to have an original essay posted here by Hans Zandvliet on the following:
It’s about calculating the peaks of global petroleum and natural gas production. I know there’s nothing new about that anymore, but what’s new about my calculations (for I did the math myself) is that I found an interesting proxy: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, publicly and freely available on the CDIAC website. CDIAC is an EIA institution of the US Department of Energy, so not some obscure source, but official US government data.
As I suppose you know, the problem with calculating peak oil has always been the secrecy of production data, so hard to get a reliable data set together. Using the CO2 emission data of CDIAC, turned out to be a very useful proxy and the big advantage is that anyone with a bit of math skills is able to reproduce my calculations. So, it offers transparency in these mysterious peak oil calculations.
So this is what my article will be about: explaining step by step how to do your own peak oil calculations, and present the results.
In the mean time, I’ll be taking a break until after Zandvliet’s article comes out.
Mr. Zandvliet’s bio:
Kevin Moore said:
Interesting email just received:
Is it natural for humans to make war? New study of tribal societies reveals conflict is an alien concept
Beating a sword in to a ploughshare actually leads to greater violence. The plough has been the single most destructive implement known. Agriculture is one of the worst mistakes ever made by humans and ALWAYS leads to warfare.
“Rather than finding war ubiquitous, the two researchers found little evidence that hunter-gatherer societies were in a constant state of violent conflict with rival groups. In short they found that some of the most “primitive” peoples on Earth were actually quite peaceful compared to modern, developed nations.
“These findings imply that warfare was probably not very common before the advent of agriculture, when most if not all humans lived as nomadic foragers,” Kirk Endicott, an anthropologist at Dartmouth College told the journal Science, where the study is published.”
Is it natural for humans to make war? New study of tribal societies reveals conflict is an alien concept
Mankind learned the art of going into battle much later than previously thought, a new academic study
Steve Connor Author Biography
Thursday 18 July 2013
Is it natural for humans to make war? Is organised violence between rival political groups an inevitable outcome of the human condition? Some scholars believe the answer is yes, but new research suggests not.
A study of tribal societies that live by hunting and foraging has found that war is an alien concept and not, as some academics have suggested, an innate feature of so-called “primitive people”.
The findings have re-opened a bitter academic dispute over whether war is a relatively recent phenomenon invented by “civilised” societies over the past few thousand years, or a much older part of human nature. In other words, is war an ancient and chronic condition that helped to shape humanity over many hundreds of thousands of years?
The idea is that war is the result of an evolutionary ancient predisposition that humans may have inherited in their genetic makeup as long ago as about 7 million years, when we last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees – who also wage a kind of war between themselves.
However, two anthropologists believe this is a myth and have now produced evidence to show it. Douglas Fry and Patrik Soderberg [umlaut over o] of Abo Akademi University in Vasa, Finland, studied 148 violently lethal incidents documented by anthropologists working among 21 mobile bands of hunter-gatherer societies, which some scholars have suggested as a template for studying how humans lived for more than 99.9 per cent of human history, before the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.
They found that only a tiny minority of violent deaths come close to being defined as acts of war. Most the violence was perpetrated by one individual against another and usually involved personal grudges involving women or stealing.
About 85 per cent of the deaths involved killers and victims who belonged to the same social group, and about two thirds of all the violent deaths could be attributed to family feuds, disputes over wives, accidents or “legal” executions, the researchers found.
“When we looked at all the violent events about 55 per cent of them involved one person killing another. That’s not war. When we looked at group conflicts, the typical pattern was feuds between families and revenge killings, which is not war either,” said Dr Fry.
“It has been tempting to use these mobile foraging societies as rough analogies of the past and to ask how old warfare is and whether it is part of human nature. Our study shows that war is obviously not very common,” he said.
Only a tiny minority of cases involved more organised killing between rival bands of people, which could fall into the definition of war-like behaviour. Most of these involved only one of the 21 groups included in the study – the Tiwi people of Australia who seemed to be particularly prone to violent incidents, Dr Fry said.
Rather than finding war ubiquitous, the two researchers found little evidence that hunter-gatherer societies were in a constant state of violent conflict with rival groups. In short they found that some of the most “primitive” peoples on Earth were actually quite peaceful compared to modern, developed nations.
“These findings imply that warfare was probably not very common before the advent of agriculture, when most if not all humans lived as nomadic foragers,” Kirk Endicott, an anthropologist at Dartmouth College told the journal Science, where the study is published.
The findings also question the conclusions of well-respected academics such as Harvard’s Stephen Pinker and University of California’s Jared Diamond, both of whom have recently published best-selling books on the subject of war-like aggression and tribal societies.
In Diamond’s “The World Until Yesterday”, for instance, war is defined as recurrent violence between groups belonging to rival political units that is sanctioned by those units. Under this definition, many tribal societies, left to their own devices, would be in a state of chronic war, Diamond says.
He cites the case of the Dani people living in the Baliem Valley of the New Guinea Highlands who in 1961 engaged in a series of violent conflicts that led to many deaths. Although the Dani are agriculturalists, Diamond uses them as examples of how early humans societies may have interacted with one another.
Meanwhile, Pinker in his book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” argues that humans are innately violent and have only become less so in recent years because of cultural influences that have kept this aggressive nature in check.
Both Pinker and Diamond have been criticised by some anthropologists for simplifying and exaggerating the research they use to support their conclusions. Even worse, some argue that they used discredited work of anthropologists such as Napoleon Chagnon who has claimed that the Yanomami people of the Amazon are in a state of chronic warfare with one another.
“Chagnon’s work is frequently used by writers such as Jared Diamond and Stephen Pinker who want to portray tribal peoples as ‘brutal savages’, far more violent than ‘us’. But none of them acknowledge that his central findings about Yanomami violence have long been discredited,” said Stephen Corry, director of Survival International.
“This latest research is the latest nail in the coffin for Pinker’s ‘Brutal Savage’ thesis. Pinker selects highly questionable data, and leaves out anything which contradicts his argument,” Mr Corry said.
“Although he and his supporters, such as Jared Diamond, present those of us who question them as ‘anti-science’, in fact their own work is simply a social and political argument with a pseudo-scientific wrapper,” he said.
Meanwhile, Dr Diamond said that many scholars agree with his conclusions that tribal societies are on average more violent than state societies.
“This conclusion might at first seem surprising, but tribal warfare tends to be chronic, while even nations with the highest war-related death tolls in the 20th Century – Russia, Germany and Poland – were mostly at peace and only intermittently at war,” Dr Diamond said.
“Corry’s passionate and error-laden condemnation of my book is clearly driven by something other than the facts. It’s Corry’s romanticised view of traditional societies that is really dangerous,” he said.
Is the “choice” really “ours”??
02 April 2014
The Neverending ‘Wakeup Call’
By David Cromwell and David Edwards
The new report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that the impacts of climate change are likely to be ‘severe, pervasive and irreversible’. Impacts include droughts, floods, heat waves, endangered species, crop failure, food insecurity, famine and even war.
But for more than 25 years, since the IPCC was set up in 1988, there have been numerous scientific ‘wakeup calls’ and nothing significant has changed. In fact, turbo-charged, fossil-fuel driven capitalism has proceeded to run amok. And, for the vested interests who are the winners in the global economy, the tiny ‘one per cent’ or less, it is vital that nothing stops their continued ‘success’. Their cynical propaganda campaign is often dressed up as the need to be ‘sensible’ and to take measures that do no ‘harm’ to the economy.
As Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com, notes:
‘Contrarians have tried to spin the conclusions of the report to incorrectly argue that it would be cheaper to try and adapt to climate change and pay the costs of climate damages. In reality the report says no such thing. The IPCC simply tells us that even if we manage to prevent the highest risk scenarios, climate change costs will still be high, and we can’t even grasp how high climate damage costs will be in the highest risk scenarios.’
The BBC News website asked on its front page, ‘Is climate report overly alarming?’, and linked to a piece by environment correspondent, Matt McGrath. The BBC journalist had trailed his piece via Twitter:
‘Dissent among scientists over key climate impacts report’
But, as several Twitter users observed, the ‘dissent’ among ‘scientists’ amounted to the objections of one individual, Richard Tol; that’s one IPCC author out of 70.
Leo Hickman, chief adviser on climate change at WWF-UK, retorted:
‘Hey, BBC, I’ve fixed the headline for you: “One go-to contrarian scientist dissents over key climate impact report”‘
The noted climate scientist Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, retweeted Hickman’s comment approvingly.
In fact, Tol is not even a ‘go-to contrarian scientist’, but rather a ‘go-to contrarian economist‘. He is a professor of economics at Sussex University.
The BBC’s McGrath kept his head down. Twitter user Peter Webber noted:
‘Days later and @mattmcgrathbbc hasn’t had professionalism to rebut criticism of his “inaccurate reporting” on IPCC “scientific dissent”‘
Entirely missing from ‘mainstream’ coverage were salient facts about Tol’s ideological stance and wretched background. For instance, Tol has worked with Bjorn ‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ Lomborg in downplaying the importance of tackling the climate crisis. In 2009, Tol was listed as an adviser to the Nigel Lawson-chaired Global Warming Policy Foundation, the notorious pro-business climate denialist ‘thinktank’. Two years earlier, in 2007, Tol was among the US Senate Republican Party’s ‘list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims’. Tol ‘dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming’. He outrageously scorned the Stern review on the economics of climate action, and the urgent need for concerted action, as ‘preposterous’, ‘alarmist and incompetent.’
Like Bees Round A Honeypot
In the broadcast and print media coverage that followed the publication of the IPCC report, Tol was a central figure featured in one report after another. Like bees swarming around a honeypot, the major broadcasters zoomed in on Tol, so enabling the news media to frame the IPCC report as arguably ‘alarmist’. BBC News at Ten was a prime perpetrator, with presenter Huw Edwards introducing the story thus:
‘But the report, compiled by experts from 70 countries, has been criticised as “alarmist” by some.’ (BBC One, March 31, 2014)
By some expert scientists? Or, in fact, by one ‘go-to contrarian’ economist; indeed, a neocon economist with climate denialist links at that?
BBC science editor David Shukman stuck to the approved script, making sure ‘balance’ was attained by a laser-like focus on Tol:
‘one scientist (sic) involved in the report withdrew his name from today’s conclusions. He says they go too far.’
Tol then said to the BBC on camera:
‘People live around the equator. People live on the Poles. So humans are very, very adaptive to very diverse climates. We have very well-developed technology to deal with those sort of things. So there will be impacts. I just don’t think that it will be dramatic.’
This was a truly absurd emphasis delivered by BBC News at public expense. But the broadcaster was not alone. The much-vaunted ‘progressive’ and ‘alternative’ Channel 4 News titled part of its coverage, ‘Was the climate change report alarmist?’ Would Jon Snow or his editor care to explain why the above headline was chosen as editorial spin for C4 News?
Perhaps Channel 4 were unable to get hold of the much-in-demand Tol, for they turned to the infamous Bjorn Lomborg as they have done many times over the years. ‘Balance’ was provided by pitting him against Baroness Bryony Worthington, a Labour life peer in the House of Lords, who argued for market solutions to tackle the climate crisis. Again, this is a decidely corporate-friendly version of ‘balance’.
Meanwhile, ITV chose the ludicrous headline, ‘UN report hopes to show opportunities climate change may present’, with ITV science editor Lawrence McGinty claiming:
‘One of the leading scientists involved in the report, Professor Chris Field, said there is a danger reports like this will be seen as overly negative, and there are some positive aspects to climate change.’
So climate catastrophe will have both ‘negative’ and ‘positive aspects’? Was this the famed news ‘balance’ sought by ‘responsible’ broadcasters? Inevitably, McGinty’s report included an interview with the near-ubiquitous Tol who complained about the IPCC telling ‘scare stories’.
Twenty-five years on, and one can only stand aghast at the stupidity and barely believable irresponsibility of the media arm of a corporate system that is very clearly out of control. Humanity simply will not survive much more business-as-usual. And yet, all around us we see immense global economic forces hell-bent on charging ahead ever faster with no interest whatever in the near-term consequences.
If we continue to look to corporate media and corporate politics for hope, this deceptive, reassuring propaganda may well continue to the bitter end. Ordinary people will have to take action. We will have to rise up and physically stop the maniacs from killing us, our children and our precious world. This is not hype; it is that serious, that late. The choice is ours.
Fossil Fuel Addiction.
It’s been the cause of all my sorrow
But I think I’ll start tomorrow
‘Cause I sure could use a hit right now
After listening to McPherson’s talk, I had the following encounter on Twitter with the business editor of a major English language newspaper in Thailand where I live. This kind of thing makes me so depressed I have to just walk away and stay off the computer for days at a time: https://scontent-a-hkg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1604490_10152067259658107_662008719_n.jpg
Kevin Moore said:
I have been thinking of the war that is raging between the informed and compassionate sector of society and TPTB as a classic is good-versus-evil war.
In view of the fact that TPTB are so evil they will stop at nothing to carry out their evil plans. We cannot win. But we can put up a good fight;
From my ‘Information and comment in response to the ‘tourism brochure NPDC with funny numbers inserted’ NPDC calls a plan for the future the future ( I refuse to submit):
:“I don’t fight fascists because I will win. I fight them because they are fascists.” -Chris Hedges, Pulitzer prize-winning author and journalist.
“I don’t fight scientifically and financially illiterate NPDC council officers because I will win. I fight them because they are scientifically and financially illiterate, and everyone will lose as a consequence of them ramming dysfunctional policies down the throat of the community via various forms of propaganda and lies. And because many of them are fascists.” –Kevin Moore ……….
Kevin Moore said:
Could be one hell of a year ahead.
david higham said:
Another good essay, Mike. The coverage of the IPCC report here(Australia)in the majority Murdoch media has been deplorable, as I expected it would be. Ephemeral issues are paramount. Yet they have a constant stream of climate change denialist articles, generally from their paid journalists. A couple of points among the many about the bubble we are living in. Without the Haber-Bosch process which fixes nitrogen for industrial agriculture, the maximum population that could be supported from the area of land now under cultivation is about 3 billion. The Addition of that nitrogen to the natural nitrogen cycle is causing problems in ecosystems around the world. The informed estimates of soil erosion on cultivated and grazing land worldwide centre around 26 billion tons. The informed estimates of the amount of soil formation on that same area are around 2.5 billion tons.(both are per year) The erosion is always from the most valuable section of the soil profile, the top soil. We are all dependent on this fragile resource for our survival. For those who missed it, at the bottom of the last thread, Mike posted an excerpt from ‘Freedom’ by Johnathon Franzen. It is a rant by Walter about population, etc, which many here will enjoy.
Thanks, David. Coincidentally I actually have a copy of that book, but had not finished it.
david higham said:
I meant to leave a comment on the last thread where you mentioned Derrida. Have you read ‘Fashionable Nonsense’ by Sokal and Bricmont? If not,I recommend placing it high on your ‘To read’ list. Many moments of laughter and incredulity.
Also,did you notice that Franzen got the numbers wrong?The population is increasing by around 77 million a year,which is around 6.5 million a month.
david higham said:
When I post a comment here,a WordPress window appears requesting I log in to WordPress to complete the process.It is because Joanna has posted a few photos to a WordPress site using our joint email address. The default name is the WordPress site name,begonia12.I have to change the name before posting.. I forgot to do that last time,which is why the comment appeared under that name.I should mention about one interview by Alan Weisman in the Countdown book.He interviewed a woman in an environmental group.She had 8 children.When he asked what she thought of the impact of population on the environment, she replied’Oh I don’t even think about that.God has supplied the problem..God will provide the solution.’The book is worth reading.We don’t have any children either
Want to understand this better?
An attempt to explain the origins of life on the planet Earth without invoking extraterrestrial agency is through Abiogenesis. An attempt to suggest origins of amino-acids is the Miller–Urey experiment.
Even an attempt to explain macromolecules is through the repeating chemical structures in clays and ceramics acting as scaffolding in the earliest assembly of such molecules.
Reblogged this on Gaia will prevail.