Comments on: Apocalypse or extinction?

By: Deconstructing negativity – Guy McPherson's blog

Deconstructing negativity – Guy McPherson's blog — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:35:03 +0000

[...] living planet upon which we depend for our lives. To my knowledge, only complete economic collapse saves our species from runaway greenhouse. To my knowledge, only complete economic collapse allows us to retain our humanity. What’s [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:26:23 +0000

Well we could do a few things to stem the tide and possibly get out of this situation. Unfortunately I do not see any of them happening until it is too late.The solutions I propose are just my thoughts and are listed in the following paragraphs.
The food issue could be solved by large scale hydroponic growing. this would turn every acre into several as you can just stack buildings. this change will have to be proceeded by a more efficient water recycling program using some sort of organic purification method. also some sort of water conservation program would have to be put into action and enforced to ensure the success of this endeavor. These actions could allow for our current population as well as providing a ‘cushion’ for future population growth.
The overpopulation issue could be solved by strict regulation of childbirth. The regulations should include licencing. These licences should only be issued after a series of physical, intellectual, genetic and psychological tests have been passed satisfactorily. The child-birthing regulations would have to be harshly enforced to make this work. Also there would have to be some sort of entity/group/organization that is responsible for the regulation of how many licences are able to be acquired in any given period. This entity will also be responsible for regulating the population growth in the country by determining how many offspring any licensed individuals may have both in a given time period and a lifetime. I also believe that the licencing process should also serve as a eugenic pairing program to ensure the best traits can be passed to future generations (I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be able to date/marry who they want but childbirth/rearing have nothing to do with either of those really). In my opinion the medical community already has the technology to easily insure that these series of programs can be made into a reality.
The Energy crisis is a harder fix. It requires technology we either have not developed or have refused to develop. My proposed solution is not to focus on the one clean renuable energy source that we feel is out savior but to implement all of them strategically. Then after we implement them all we keep developing them and other energy solutions to try to ensure we can continue providing for out energy needs while maintain a surplus. We would also have to delve deeply into new energy storage devices that are reusable and environmentally safe. We would have to make it less favorable to use the outmoded fossil fuels by way of stiff penalties and meticulous regulatory methods.
I believe that if all of the above methods are undertaken in by the entire population we have a hope of getting through this crisis. If we do not a species adopt these or similar steps to ensure our own survival well I hope the next dominant species takes better care of themselves. Although I could be wrong, hopefully I am, I do not think so.

By: High tide of hate mail – Guy McPherson's blog

High tide of hate mail – Guy McPherson's blog — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:19:05 +0000

[...] and charting a coursePrescription for (Killing) the PlanetEntropy revisitedWhen the empire fallsApocalypse or extinction?What works, maybe: individual optionsA Few Rocks from the Box: A MeditationMaking other [...]

By: Greatest hits – Guy McPherson's blog

Greatest hits – Guy McPherson's blog — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:00:18 +0000

[...] Apocalypse or extinction? Now I mourn because the solution is right in front of us, yet we run from it. We fail to recognize our salvation for what it is, believing it to be dystopia instead of utopia. Are we waiting for the last human on the planet to start the crusade? [...]

By: What works, maybe: individual options – Guy McPherson's blog

What works, maybe: individual options – Guy McPherson's blog — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:24:11 +0000

[...] all habitat for humans on Earth by the end of this century (and, if the models are to be believed, much sooner). Along the way, if we have our way, we’ll destroy every non-industrial culture and every [...]

By: Prescription for (Killing) the Planet – Guy McPherson's blog

Prescription for (Killing) the Planet – Guy McPherson's blog — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:33:31 +0000

[...] And even further along the route of Blees’ nuclear wet dreams, we’ll have all the nuke plants we need to satisfy the world’s demand for electricity by 2050. If we come even remotely close to that goal, there will be no humans on the planet to use the electricity. The latest (ultra-conservative) projections indicate extinction of our species by mid-century. [...]

By: Terminating the industrial economy: a ten-step plan – Guy McPherson's blog

Terminating the industrial economy: a ten-step plan – Guy McPherson's blog — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:09:33 +0000

[...] 3. Convince others to join you in getting active. Show them the data. Buy them books. We need a revolution. Therefore, we need revolutionaries. Think about the 15% solution: one in seven. Then 15% more. Rinse and repeat, until we’re an insurmountable force. And hurry: Time is not on our side. [...]

By: Leadership in the post-carbon era – Guy McPherson's blog

Leadership in the post-carbon era – Guy McPherson's blog — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:27:28 +0000

[...] left with two politically unviable choices: economic meltdown or extinction of our species (and many others). To the maximum possible extent, [...]

By: Think some more too...

Think some more too... — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:45:01 +0000

Oh and by the way… some more facts to consider.
There is an island of garbage twice the size of Texas in the Pacific, 60 years ago, it wasn’t there, how big will it be in another 50 years? Four times… eight times the size of Texas?
There are still over 20,000 nuclear warheads in this world, 184 of which were “lost” with the fall of Russia. The total amount is enough firepower to kill of all the world’s population a few times over, and only one of the “lost ones” is enough to incite the global war that would cause that.
Tobacco is the world’s largest industry via sold and packaged product, I am not kidding, it is worth over 400 billion a year, and accounts for about 20% of all international trade. About 20% of the world smokes believe it or not (even today), and every single cigarette smoked, pollutes the atmosphere.
Buildings… cause more amounts of pollution then cars in Co2 emissions.
And lastly, (and if this does not get the idea of what I am conveying to you through your head nothing will) ocean acidification is a far greater danger then global warming, and is caused by the same method (Co2 emissions), and is impossible to reverse.
I hope you see what I am conveying now, and why I “gave up” environmentalism?
There are still more global facts, that when looked at give anyone a clear idea of just how dramatically and fast-paced our world is changing, and will change.
What i ask of you reading this, is consider the fact that by trying to “change the world for the better” you are very well damning yourself to being one of the billions that will never see that “changed world”.
Humanity’s only hope now, is that a few survive, and they only way to accomplish that, is on a person to person basis of individual choice, and a lot of personal hardship. You are trying to fight the planet wrapped up in a resource war, and 7 billion other people at the same time wrapped up in an ideological one, use your head…
Save yourself.

By: Just think...

Just think... — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:11:05 +0000

After reading on all of this, and from someone who has looked into the environmental issue extensively for over a decade, and from someone who in no way doubts the science behind the issue, or the possible and very likely consequences of the issue, I can only say this.
Lets look at some figures, (All freely available to verify via Wikipedia),and use some common sense.
About 7 billion people on the planet.
Approximately 1 third of them believe in human induced climate change.
Another 1 third (2.3 billion roughly) believe in climate change, but doubt humans are responsible.
Another third are not even aware of the subject.
So let’s use some more common sense.
If one third of the world believes in climate change, ask yourself how many are taking the necessary steps to prevent climate change personally? I do not know this figure, but let’s say half (knowing human nature that is generous) are actually recycling, shopping local, etc. That’s only about 1.15 billion that are “toning it down”, the rest incidentally are “stepping it up” (India/China,etc) or “dying off” (Africa, etc).
Throw in the fact that every year another 80 million people are born onto this planet, that’s an increase of about Germany, every year.
Throw in the fact that there are 195 countries (if one counts Taiwan), all with separate ruling governments and different laws, cultures, attitudes, societal issues, and beliefs.
Throw in the fact that the world has about 5000 to 10000 different languages, about ten or so of them which are widely (and exclusively by region) spoken.
Throw in the fact that about one third of the world is functionally illiterate.
Throw in the fact that issues just as far reaching, devastating, and consequential (nuclear war, conventional war, poverty, human rights and liberty, religious freedom and conflict, and a dozen others) are also at the forefront of human affairs.
The world is a complicated and ever growing place.
Common sense would lead you to one conclusion after knowing just those basic facts about the world.
You can’t change it, not through talk and dialogue.
It’s too big and complicated, too uneven (if you think your “message” for example is being spread via the net to everyone, well… 1.67 billion people with internet access as of now, that means about 5.33 billion… without), and too faced paced for anyone to make a difference. True some can make somewhat of a difference, but policy wise it is not you, the little guy. Even the president (Obama or anyone) cannot change the policy decisions of say… China, or Russia, or India.
And knowing all this, and the coming effects of climate change, which are real, common sense would tell you the only thing any individual can do is devise a plan to survive.
That’s easy, provided the problem does not get so bad as to cause a total global wipe out of life. Move north (it won’t be as hot), stay by available water (so you can drink), learn how to grow your own food and hunt (so you can eat), and build and repair your home (so you have shelter).
Common sense would also tell you that you can either wait for the full effects of the crisis to be felt, or get a jump start.
Common sense… the world is changing, globally it is changing, and to think you can change people, especially -everyone- is not only naive, it is both stupid and insane, and very egotistical. Even if you could somehow “make the world listen” on some emotional and intellectual level, the number of those people you could effectively communicate with is very limited. It is more naive to assume that you could change the world’s people… in time.
But you can try to save yourself. I am…
*Written from the interior of the Yukon, Canada, very… north.