Slashdot Mirror
Will Earth Expire By 2050?
_josh writes: "Will overconsumption force humanity off this planet in less than 50 years? It may sound sci-fi, but according to the WWF in this story at the Observer, it's entirely possible. Maybe now I can convince my brother not to buy that SUV ..." Take with as large a grain of salt as you think appropriate.
What do wrestlers know about the overconsumption of resources and its effect on habitable planets?
WWF as in "World Wrestling Federation"???
this has been predicted by tree-hugging morons every decade for the last god-knows-how-long. get over it. it's not "damning" because it's not true.
"Forests have dwindled by 12 percent." Yeah, get over it. People cut down trees, and 88% isn't exactly dwindling, especially given that in the past 30 years the human population has doubled. The article makes it seem that forests are the only things that "absorb carbon dioxide emissions". That's a load of crap; algae are responsible for the majority of carbon-dioxide recycling, and it's always been that way.
Sure, you can hug your trees, but know your facts. (Hug your librarian instead.)
I can't believe this article was posted. It is almost as bad as any troll. It isn't even an article, it is more the ramblings of a eco freak socialist. My god, we have been hearing these same apocolyptic predictions since the industrial revolution began.
These zealots unfortunately suffer from the same problems as all zealots. They are irrational, and unable to see reality.
Does any single sentence in this ridiculous article give any shred of proof to the assertion mankind can go extinct in 50 years? How did they come up with this number? Nothing but gobblygook to back up their outrageous claims.
If anything indicates this story was not based on sound scientific evidence it is mention that the evil Republicans headed by George W Bush will cause the collapse of civilization as we know it because Bushie pulled out of the Kyoto treaty.
Of course, the snivelling remark of every socialist was evidence the real nature of this article - and the environmental movement - in the following quote: "The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life"
This assertion does not give any indication who suddenly posseses the ability to see the future, to know which technological advancements will be available tomorrow to deal with this problems. This article is based on the absolutely absurd notion that a) current consumption of natural resources by britons increases at certain rate per year. b) this rate will forever remain the same for all humans c) this rate of increase in consumption will ultimately apply to all humans who indulge in the capitalistic pig fest.
Is it not logical to assume that history will continue to repeat itself? Technology will increase and solve these problems? As it always has? That we will ultimately kill the weaker persons who are stealing the natural resources to which we are the rightful owners?
Of course, as socialists, they don't understand nature. Nature always forces shortages on populations, the result of this is natural selection, competition. Those humans that can survive win, those they cannot die. But for all their clammoring about nature, they can't for a second realize the real problem in this world is we keep too many people alive who otherwise should die. Death, that evil word, sends chills down the spines of do-gooders everywhere. It doesn't matter, when the population competition does get that fierce, we will just have another war. Nothing really starts wars EVER other than competition for natural resources. Let the blood flow!!!!
I don't read or respond to AC posts
First of all, Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto. Congress must agree to international treaties, and the Senate voted it down something like 99-0 back during the Clinton administration.
And don't be fooled that Kyoto is the answer. Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt to cripple the US economy to allow other nations to catch up. And it is hidden behind a solution to a "problem" that scientists can even agree exists (global warming).
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Q) What's red and orange, and looks good on hippies?
:)
A) Fire.
(/me ducks for cover
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->