PDA

View Full Version : 'Intriguing' Solution for Global Warming


dangerclose
07-16-2007, 08:08 PM
Newsweek
Updated: 2:52 p.m. PT July 14, 2007
July 23, 2007 issue -

The Second Coming may be the most widely anticipated apocalypse ever, but it's far from the only version of the end times. Environmentalists have their own eschatology—a vision of a world not consumed by holy fire but returned to ecological balance by the removal of the most disruptive species in history. That, of course, would be us, the 6 billion furiously metabolizing and reproducing human beings polluting its surface. There's even a group trying to bring it about, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose Web site calls on people to stop having children altogether. And now the journalist Alan Weisman has produced, if not a bible, at least a Book of Revelation, "The World Without Us," which conjures up a future something like ... well, like the area around Chernobyl, the Russian nuclear reactor that blew off a cloud of radioactive steam in 1986. In a radius of 30 kilometers, there are no human settlements—just forests that have begun reclaiming fields and towns, home to birds, deer, wild boar and moose.

Weisman's intriguing thought experiment is to ask what would happen if the rest of the Earth was similarly evacuated—not by a nuclear holocaust or natural disaster, but by whisking people off in spaceships, or killing them with a virus that spares the rest of the biosphere. In a world with no one to put out fires, repair dams or plow fields, what would become of the immense infrastructure humans have woven across the globe? In a matter of days or weeks, nuclear power plants around the world would boil off their water and melt into vast radioactive lumps. Electrical power would fail, and with it the pumps keeping New York City's subways from flooding; in a few years Lexington Avenue would collapse and eventually turn into a river. Lightning-caused fires would blow out the windows in skyscrapers, and concrete floors would freeze and buckle. A few centuries on, steel bridges would fall victim to rust and the inexorable assault of vegetation taking root in windblown clumps of soot. Masonry structures would last the longest, although the next ice age would wipe them out, at least at the latitude of New York, and bronze sculpture, Weisman estimates, would still be recognizable 10 million years into the future, probably the last recognizable artifacts of our civilization.

And what of the biosphere? Unless global warming has already progressed beyond the point of no return, it would eventually recover much of its diversity and richness. Contrary to widespread belief, cockroaches would not take over the world if there were no one around to step on them: tropical insects, they wouldn't survive their first winter without central heating. Rats and dogs would miss us the most, it seems—the former for our garbage and the latter our protection from bigger predators. Feral cats, on the other hand, would do quite well: there would be plenty of birds for them to eat. Elephants would once again have the run of Africa, and the oceans would be filled with fish as few alive have ever seen them. Much of the world would come to resemble ... well, the Korean demilitarized zone, where no one has set foot for more than half a century, now a mecca for Korean bird watchers.

Sound appealing? Well, it did to Weisman, too, when he began work on the book four years ago. And "four out of five" of the people he's told about it, he estimates, thought the idea sounded wonderful. Since we're headed inexorably toward an environmental crash anyway, why not get it over cleanly and allow the world to heal? Over time, though, Weisman's attitude toward the rest of humanity softened, as he thought of some of the beautiful things human beings have accomplished, their architecture and poetry, and he eventually arrived at what he views as a compromise position: a worldwide, voluntary agreement to limit each human couple to one child. This, says Weisman—who is 60, and childless after the death of his only daughter—would stabilize the human population by the end of the century at about 1.6 billion, approximately where it was in 1900. And then, perhaps, more of the world could resemble ... Varosha, the beach resort in Cyprus in the no man's land between the Greek and Turkish zones, where, Weisman writes, thickets of hibiscus, oleander and passion lilac grow wild and houses disappear under magenta mounds of bougainvillea.

Too bad there's no one there to see it.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762077/site/newsweek/


The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and the other eco-nuts who think like them need to lead by example and commit mass suicide. C'mon now, it's for mother earth.

This is right out of Clancy's Rainbow Six.

Thank .. Gaia ... people like these <cough>Al Gore</cough> aren't in charge of things.

Hellfish
07-16-2007, 08:10 PM
I'd happily wipe out humanity, if given the chance.

Ria
07-16-2007, 08:19 PM
I'd happily wipe out humanity, if given the chance.

Wait a while, I haven't gone scuba diving yet.:)



Just more extremists, nothing new. They can stop having children, I don't care...we're overpopulated anyways.

SnakeBiteLeader
07-16-2007, 08:22 PM
That's straight out of a science fiction novel.

shocker1
07-16-2007, 08:30 PM
Weisman's intriguing thought experiment is to ask what would happen if the rest of the Earth was similarly evacuated by killing them(man) with a virus that spares the rest of the biosphere.Sound appealing? Well, it did to Weisman, tooCome on Weisman be an example and do it right now. We will follow.p-) No need for group poison.


Idiot what's bad is he made money with this glorious brain fart.

Wolfe117
07-16-2007, 09:20 PM
I suggest this Voluntary Human Extinction Group show good faith and start with themselves. Then seeing their heroic gesture of retroactive abortion the rest of us will follow suit.....................................................NOT!

Will938
07-16-2007, 09:28 PM
"killing them with a virus that spares the rest of the biosphere."

Rainbow Six anyone?

Kiva
07-17-2007, 01:58 AM
Wow..what an idiot. Of course, his idea is even more absurd since he is banking on a climatic change that isn't being caused by us in any way.

~Kiva

Hilbert
07-17-2007, 02:32 AM
Beautiful, simply beautiful. Humanity at it's best egh?

WarriorMonk
07-17-2007, 09:15 AM
go and TAKE THEIR SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

Mu-Meson
07-17-2007, 12:15 PM
A global population of 1.6 billion by the end of the century? Give me the means, and I'd skim the Earths population to that by the end of the week.

Bert
07-17-2007, 02:42 PM
There's even a group trying to bring it about, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose Web site calls on people to stop having children altogether.

Darwin at work. Yes, thank you, stop polluting the gene pool.

*goes over to donate to VHEM*

Maktab
07-17-2007, 03:12 PM
Forget Gaia, it's for the sake of our gene pool that I hope these people remove themselves from the earth. They're polluting it.

Fact is, it doesn't really matter what we do to the earth. We could throw nukes around with abandon, criss-cross the countryside in dirty coal mines, overpopulate the hell out of the place and shoot all the pretty animals... and things would be back to normal in a few million years (a blink of an eye in galactic terms). There is nothing we can do that could permanently damage the planet.

Take the meteor that wiped the dinosaurs out as an example. It was apocalyptic, spewing radiation and throwing dust into the air that blanketed the sun for years. Half the living things on earth died. Not even with all our nukes could we match its ferocious power.. Yet here we are 65 million years later, with a sweet climate, abundant species and a healthy planet. Sure, we lost the dinosaurs, but we got cooler things like lions and elephants. Fair trade, I say.

And the problem isn't that we have too many people. It's that too many of them are dirt poor. Rich people build cities, with high-rise apartments to offices to maximise space; poor people build shacks. Rich people fence off areas to create national parks and go there to admire the animals; poor people go there to poach and eat the animals. It's tough to live an eco-friendly life when just living in itself is a challenge.

Yet the sheer irony is that enviro-loonies like Weismann are opposed to progress and the accumulation of wealth. They idolise the poor, seeing them as "close to nature" and see it as an ideal rather than what it truly is, a hardship. But poor communities cannot handle serious population increases, as they cannot build the infrastructure to support it. But these nutty greens, stuck between the two ideals of the peasant lifestyle and the growing reality that it's not sustainable if more advanced agriculture and medicine brings population growth, opt for the radical third option instead: Just kill everybody.

There's an easier option. Just get out of their way and let them grow richer. The problems will solve themselves.

CPLHUNTER
07-17-2007, 03:13 PM
Good idea...maybe we could take some lessons from Hitler on mass extermination.

Hellfish
07-17-2007, 03:14 PM
Forget Gaia, it's for the sake of our gene pool that I hope these people remove themselves from the earth. They're polluting it.

Fact is, it doesn't really matter what we do to the earth. We could throw nukes around with abandon, criss-cross the countryside in dirty coal mines, overpopulate the hell out of the place and shoot all the pretty animals... and things would be back to normal in a few million years (a blink of an eye in galactic terms). There is nothing we can do that could permanently damage the planet.

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet.

Of course the earth will be back to normal in a few MILLION years, you ****ing idiot. Fat lot of good that does us in 20, when I'll still be alive.

Mr. JOSHUA
07-17-2007, 03:38 PM
That guy needs to get laid.

Maktab
07-17-2007, 04:49 PM
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet.

Of course the earth will be back to normal in a few MILLION years, you ****ing idiot. Fat lot of good that does us in 20, when I'll still be alive.You're missing the point. I was arguing against the stupid theories that mankind was "destroying Gaia" as guys like Weismann believe. I never said we should throw nukes around with abandon or generally commit suicide. Just that it wouldn't matter to the earth in the long term if we did.

The question of what we should do to save *our* lives (and I'm pretty keen on living) is a different issue. Of course we need to do what we can to ensure the world's worth living in 20 years from now. I never said otherwise. But we need to do it with the understanding that because you can't hurt "Gaia", you shouldn't fear the kind of development that allows people to become wealthier and more eco-conscious in the first place. Our primary concern should only be our survival and well-being, not that of anything else.

So stop, take a step back, and re-read what I wrote, this time without jumping to non-existent conclusions.

Mr. JOSHUA
07-17-2007, 04:52 PM
Hmmmm.

From the short time I've been here, I've learned its not good to piss off the almighty beast Hellfish.

Hellfish
07-17-2007, 05:00 PM
You're missing the point. I was arguing against the stupid theories that mankind was "destroying Gaia" as guys like Weismann believe. I never said we should throw nukes around with abandon or generally commit suicide. Just that it wouldn't matter to the earth in the long term if we did.

The question of what we should do to save *our* lives (and I'm pretty keen on living) is a different issue. Of course we need to do what we can to ensure the world's worth living in 20 years from now. I never said otherwise. But we need to do it with the understanding that because you can't hurt "Gaia", you shouldn't fear the kind of development that allows people to become wealthier and more eco-conscious in the first place. Our primary concern should only be our survival and well-being, not that of anything else.

So stop, take a step back, and re-read what I wrote, this time without jumping to non-existent conclusions.

Pffff. If I went back to reread everything, I'd be a liberal.

Mr. JOSHUA
07-17-2007, 05:08 PM
Thats the spirit!

Maktab
07-17-2007, 05:53 PM
Heh, can't argue with that.

RECON DOC
07-17-2007, 06:06 PM
So here's the plan.....We blow up the moon see?

It has been proven that there is a direct correlation between menstruation, premenstrual syndrome and the cycles of the moons orbit. This causes every woman on the planet to become bitchy and a pain in the ass. This in turn drives the men, in all sectors of life, to stay away from home longer and longer, and spending more time at work. This in turn pollutes the atmosphere, because the factory owners, factory workers and everybody else are going full bore cause they cant stand to go home to that bitch.

No moon = no bitches = happy men =

Cheep gas, because dudes spend less time driving around just to stay away from home and that bitch a little longer. This in turn reduces the demand on the market and thus the price drops.

No war, because dudes are more chilled out when their old lady isn't breaking their balls and it's easier to talk things out over a few beers.

Starvation in Africa, because the dudes that control everything will lighten up on the hungry dudes and cut them a break because they're in a better mood. That's because their women stopped being bitches, because the moon is gone.

Eureka!!! The list goes on ad infinitum.

So verily I say, the moon needs to be blown the **** up pronto.

Tides you say? What the hell do they really do anyway? They go in they go out, big deal. So what? I for one certainly don't have a use for them.
Besides this is about the survival of the human race here.

Remember: No moon = No bitches = The survival of the human race.

Rakki
07-18-2007, 01:46 AM
Mother Nature doesn't care whether a species or a thousand die here and there. Even in radioactive places like Chernobyl and land mine strewn areas like the DMZ nature gets on with its own business.

The question is whether human beings as a species survive - and whether we can maintain the civilization that we have built up today. If we want to survive, well, fighting nature and depleting its resources until we can no longer sustain ourselves is probably not the way to go about it.

Weisman is right, except to do a 1 child policy it's going to require some major social engineering and China style enforcement. Might be better to just have regular wars to sort out the population pressure altogether.

dangerclose
07-18-2007, 02:38 PM
Weisman is right, except to do a 1 child policy it's going to require some major social engineering. (read: mass murder)


Again, have the courage of your convictions and do your part.

Mr. JOSHUA
07-18-2007, 02:48 PM
No moon, no bitches.

Sounds like a good 08' presidential campaign slogan.......

........it'll be stolen soon.