Renewable Revolution

Nick Breeze interview with East Siberian Arctic Shelf researcher (ESAS) Dr. Natalia Shakhova on why the important news about methane news is not reaching mainstream news. Powerful interests seem to be in the way of Arctic methane education.

UB,
Palloy can tell us what a mathematician's definition of a low probability event or a high probability event is. But, if that is an existential threat, what is the cognitive threshold approximate percentage that would spur the average person to dispense with supporting incremental measures to prevent that threat and demand immediate and massive measures?

IOW, do we perceive a 20% or greater chance of Near Term Human Extinction, even though that is technically a relatively low probability (although a statistically significant one!), as a high probability?

Threat response is a bag of worms even without people making money form convincing people to keep bathing in that river in Egypt. 

But isn't part of that denial a refusal to OWN the responsibility for the possibility that the threat is significant enough to merit immediate action, rather than incremental measures?

I go blue in the face every time Monsta brings up his "we are all to blame because of population overshoot" business. But at least he recognizes that there IS an existential threat, even if he has difficulties reading pie charts.



Anyone can see that if you CULL 80% of human population (ALL the poor and MOST of the middle class), you will not DENT the level of pollution being generated by the rest of Homo Sapdom. Monsta doesn't get that. He really thinks that all those dead people will convince the surviving predators to be nice to the environment. 


And there is that Monsta's wet depopulation dream will solve our environmental problems, not simply because the polluting industry facts state otherwise, but because the morally challenged Predators 'R' US world view of the top 20% is at the ROOT of the degradation of democracy and the biosphere.

But Monsta will not go there. And he will not go there because, if he did, the whole population overshoot thing would be exposed for the scapegoating, blame the victim, ethics challenged rhetoric that it is.

NO, Monsta, all those high resource users will NOT use less resources because 80% of the population died.

THAT is because THAT 80% DOES NOT participate significantly  in the MARKET (see GDP fun and games) for all that industrial STUFF we produce in the piggy counties. the FACTORIES will NOT slow down to a sustainable biosphere 'roar' just because the bottom 80% get offed, as you seem to believe.

Thought Experiment (backed up by U.N. study FACTS): About 20% of the Population of humans does about 80% of the damage to the biosphere. Would it then be logical to reduce the population from the main polluters in equal proportion to the low carbon footprint 80%?

Only if you are logic challenged AND belong to the less than 20% doing more than 80% of the damage.

However, if you think critically, you would understand that the culprit is the carbon footprint of the less than 20% pig humans that everybody posting here belongs to. You would also understand that culling the low carbon footprint masses is, besides being useless to stop the environmental damage, a cruel cop out.

The problem is industrial pollution BY THAT less than 20% group AND their big meat and big ag pollution on top of that.

The solution REQUIRES, WITHOUT DELAY, a maximum carbon footprint allowed, FIRST OF ALL, to our polluting piggy 20%.

That means we get OFF of fossil fuels, nuclear power and we start eating insect protein instead of animal protein along with organic veggies.

THEN, an only then, can we address the human population problem.

Here's a nice picture from the U.N. that shows the REAL world out there. Your idea of killing most of humanity will not put a DENT in the pollution problem as long as we in the polluting piggy 20% keep doing what we do.



http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg85182.html#msg85182