"Twitter said that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had brought the accounts to their attention."
Would they have jumped as quickly if the RNC had brought 10,000 accounts to their attention? Or would we be reading about how the RNC tried to get Twitter to censor accounts of well-meaning woke robots?
Thanks for mansplaining all that to me, but if RHEL is not going to support KDE, I have a concern that it will not be included in the distribution. So to install a KDE app, I'll have to go the third-party repositories for konsole app, then drag in who knows how many dependencies from third-party site? Some people work at places where unofficial (not RHEL) sites are forbidden (we sure aren't putting media codecs on our servers) or at least require exception approval. It's easier to just find a RHEL-provided app that still satisfies the majority of what I want.
"It would be nice if it were possible for millions of Americans to simultaneously tell Trump what we really thought of him in a way he had to listen to."
Well, there was an election in 2016 where 65M people said they agreed with him enough so that he should be President. There's another coming up in 2020.
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
In light of the current Kavanaugh allegations, which Democrat's say could not possibly be made up, and that all women must be believed even without even the flimsiest of evidence...
We have here Kieth Ellison, the deputy chair of the DNC, former Congressman from Minnesota is also running for Minnesota AG spot. His ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan, a Sierra Club activist and Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, accused the Minnesota Democrat of emotionally and physically abusing her during their relationship.
"Monahan published a November 2017 medical document on Sept. 19 showing she told her doctor about alleged “emotional and physical abuse” and named Ellison as the alleged abuser.
"Ellison did not challenge the document’s authenticity during Friday’s debate but claimed it came “as she was putting together the allegation she made two days before the primary.”
"Ellison’s primary didn’t take place until nine months after Monahan told her doctor about the alleged abuse.
"Ellison also could not guarantee Friday that more accusers won’t come forward, suggesting women may “cook up” allegations because of the “current political environment.”
"The DNC, where Ellison is the deputy chair, originally said on Aug. 14 that it would be “reviewing” the allegations but DNC Chair Tom Perez later deferred to the DFL’s investigation.
Republicans withheld on Garland for the same reason that Democrats are frothing over Kavanaugh. Garland was NOT a simple replacement for Scalia, he was a balance-changing nominee completely at odds with the Justice he was nominated to replace, like Kavanaugh. Once Trump won and nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace Garland as the nominee for Calia's slot, that was easier to stomach even for Democrats because it didn't fundamentally alter the Court's makeup.
Should RBG pass while Trump is still in office and Trump nominates Amy Barrett, I fully expect Democrats to lose their minds again, and probably have Professor Ford "recall" that Amy Barrett tried to rape her once 35 years ago, too.
Just for the fun of it, I'd like to see Trump nominate Bill Clinton. How would the #metoo and #resist work out that dilemma? If everything Trump does is evil and he nominated Bill Clinton, then nominating Bill Clinton is evil and must be resisted. Bill Clinton was accused of rape and #shemustbebelieved, so he should be disqualified.
The head-spinning would be like a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back, then dropped from a mild height.
Captain Kirk: Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now listen to this carefully, Norman. I am... lying.
Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!
Captain Kirk: [giving him the same statement the androids have repeatedly given him several times before] I am not programmed to respond in that area.
WSJ reported today that "Amazon, which has faced criticism about pay and benefits, said it would raise the minimum wage for all U.S. workers. The company will also start lobbying Congress for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 an hour"
Might not be mentioned in the original summary or article.
They're not doing it for any of those reasons. They're doing it so that that can say they did it for positive reasons while simultaneously asking government for force their competitors to do the same, especially if it hurts the competition way more than it hurts Amazon.
The word "poverty" to me conjures images of Depression-era, dust-bowl families with 8 kids living in a one-room tar-paper shack, no electricity, no running water, no crops, no food, no way out. Or hungry people living in tents under the overpass because they lost their jobs. It doesn't normally invoke people who spend all the money they have (or can steal) on meth, nor people who've had their $70K SUV repossessed because they couldn't actually afford the payments.
Maybe that's just me. This 2011 Heritage report is a bit dated, but interesting view.
The Census Bureau’s annual poverty report presents a misleading picture of poverty in the United States. Few of the 46.2 million people identified by the Census Bureau as being “in poverty” are what most Americans would consider poor—lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, or clothing. The typical “poor” American lives in an air-conditioned house or apartment and has cable TV, a car, multiple color TVs, a DVD player, and a VCR among other conveniences. While some of the poor face significant material hardship, formulating a sound, long-term anti-poverty policy that addresses the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty will require honest and accurate information. Exaggerating the extent and severity of hardships will not benefit society, the taxpayers, or the poor.
Aren't there something like 57 "genders" now? And for the "gender fluid", would they only be allowed their board seat on the days when their fluidity coincides with the legal requirement?
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
There are headcount taxes and overhead, like unemployment insurance or ADP paycheck processing. Any benefits that you pay you are now paying to more employees, e.g. if you give each employee two weeks paid leave, going from 3 to 4 employees (3 * 8 = 24, 4 * 6 = 24) you have additional overhead of two weeks of pay per extra employee. Wages+benefits usually runs 1.25 to 1.4 times the wage rate. It costs money to hire employees, "Not every new hire will demand the entire process, but even an $8/hour employee can end up costing a company around $3,500 in turnover costs, both direct and indirect. [Investopedia]" due to things like training, recruiting, workplace integration (a new desk&chair, or extra uniforms for the additional people).
Also, the people who had been working 8 hour shifts at $8/hour will probably actually be unhappy about getting their hours cut to 6, as they face a 25% decrease in take-home pay. Unless you want us to increase their pay so that they still make the same in 6 hours as they were making in 8...by which time you've raised the cost of each employee by 25% so that you can pay the new 4th employee.
They probably live in a country where some populist government (people's republic of...) run by a charismatic strongman promising them salvation has seized farms (perhaps murdering the farmers in the process) and industries to be run by favored cronies. The farms stop producing food and the industries stop producing goods and the people live in fear of the government and/or the government supported gangs, the poor people will pile up.
Ok, there's been a disconnect here somewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU were a socialist SJW (I've no idea what you believe in).
I latched onto the keyword "agenda" and went from there. When I said "but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.", I meant in the abstract the proposer of some sort of (non-)solution, not you as the original poster. That is, many proposed "solutions" appear to come from people far more interested in socialism than in science and their agenda (!) is that of SJW and not of a "climate warrior". And sadly, many of those people are "leaders" in the environmental/climate-change movements.
I'm FOR solar, and FOR wind, and recycling, and reducing my carbon footprint. Hell my wife and I just bought a 43 acre piedmont farm so we can be self sufficient and off the grid (one of the first major upgrades will be a solar plant; we had a microwave internet tower put in so we can work from home--zero commute emissions!).
I was trying to discuss the subset of AGW alarmists who do not seem to actually care about real solutions (carbon sequestration, solar, etc.) and instead have hijacked the potential crisis for their socialist political agenda (there's the word!) blathering on about income inequality instead of sustainable low-impact farming, crying about social injustices instead of anything that might actually help the situation. Also the related subset of AGW alarmists who are clearly in it to make a buck for themselves.
Those folks have hijacked what is most probably a serious situation and are not helping find real solutions. Let's talk about the problem and how to solve it.
Yep, it certainly appears that South Africa is on the fast track to ignoring all the lessons that should have been learned from the stellar success that was Mugabe's Zimbabwe experiment.
When environmentalist say we need fewer people, they always assume that they--of course--would be included in the group that gets to keep on living when the rest are euthanized or however they envision accomplishing their population reduction.
P.S. Has Paul Ehrlich EVER been right?
Optimum Human Population Size By Gretchen C. Daily, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Paul R. Ehrlich
Although the tremendous size and rate of growth of the human population now influences virtually every aspect of society, rarely does the public debate, or even consider, the question of what would be an optimum number of human beings to live on Earth at any given time. While there are many possible optima depending on criteria and conditions, there is a solid scientific basis for determining the bounds of possibilities. All optima must lie between the minimum viable population size, MVP (Gilpin and Soule, 1986; Soule, 1987) and the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). At the lower end, 50 to 100 people in each of several groups, for a total of about 500, would constitute an MVP.
At the upper end, the present population of 5.5 billion, with its resource consumption patterns and technologies, has clearly exceeded the capacity of Earth to sustain it. This is evident in the continuous depletion and dispersion of a one-time inheritance of essential, non-substitutable resources that now maintains the human enterprise (e.g. Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1991; Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).
A world with 1.5 billion people using 4.5 TW of energy seems equally plausible and would carry a larger margin of safety. This is about the same number of people as existed at the turn of the century.
To summarize this brief essay, determination of an "optimum" world population size involves social decisions about the lifestyles to be lived and the distribution of those lifestyles among individuals in the population. To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technologies change radically, the optimum size of the human population lies in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people.
Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation. If nothing else, if we could run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I look forward to clean fusion plants (now supposedly only 20 years in the future!).
So please, folks, don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
For example, the IPCC report on climate change...Let's see...it doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things... It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.
But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it, with climate change to have the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice an
Slashdot Mirror
"Twitter said that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had brought the accounts to their attention."
Would they have jumped as quickly if the RNC had brought 10,000 accounts to their attention? Or would we be reading about how the RNC tried to get Twitter to censor accounts of well-meaning woke robots?
Thanks for mansplaining all that to me, but if RHEL is not going to support KDE, I have a concern that it will not be included in the distribution. So to install a KDE app, I'll have to go the third-party repositories for konsole app, then drag in who knows how many dependencies from third-party site? Some people work at places where unofficial (not RHEL) sites are forbidden (we sure aren't putting media codecs on our servers) or at least require exception approval. It's easier to just find a RHEL-provided app that still satisfies the majority of what I want.
I like Qt and use the "konsole" terminal app. Guess I need to find a new tabbed terminal app that I like as much as konsole.
"It would be nice if it were possible for millions of Americans to simultaneously tell Trump what we really thought of him in a way he had to listen to."
Well, there was an election in 2016 where 65M people said they agreed with him enough so that he should be President. There's another coming up in 2020.
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
In light of the current Kavanaugh allegations, which Democrat's say could not possibly be made up, and that all women must be believed even without even the flimsiest of evidence...
We have here Kieth Ellison, the deputy chair of the DNC, former Congressman from Minnesota is also running for Minnesota AG spot. His ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan, a Sierra Club activist and Ellison’s ex-girlfriend, accused the Minnesota Democrat of emotionally and physically abusing her during their relationship.
"Monahan published a November 2017 medical document on Sept. 19 showing she told her doctor about alleged “emotional and physical abuse” and named Ellison as the alleged abuser.
"Ellison did not challenge the document’s authenticity during Friday’s debate but claimed it came “as she was putting together the allegation she made two days before the primary.”
"Ellison’s primary didn’t take place until nine months after Monahan told her doctor about the alleged abuse.
"Ellison also could not guarantee Friday that more accusers won’t come forward, suggesting women may “cook up” allegations because of the “current political environment.”
"The DNC, where Ellison is the deputy chair, originally said on Aug. 14 that it would be “reviewing” the allegations but DNC Chair Tom Perez later deferred to the DFL’s investigation.
Republicans withheld on Garland for the same reason that Democrats are frothing over Kavanaugh. Garland was NOT a simple replacement for Scalia, he was a balance-changing nominee completely at odds with the Justice he was nominated to replace, like Kavanaugh. Once Trump won and nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace Garland as the nominee for Calia's slot, that was easier to stomach even for Democrats because it didn't fundamentally alter the Court's makeup.
Should RBG pass while Trump is still in office and Trump nominates Amy Barrett, I fully expect Democrats to lose their minds again, and probably have Professor Ford "recall" that Amy Barrett tried to rape her once 35 years ago, too.
Just for the fun of it, I'd like to see Trump nominate Bill Clinton. How would the #metoo and #resist work out that dilemma? If everything Trump does is evil and he nominated Bill Clinton, then nominating Bill Clinton is evil and must be resisted. Bill Clinton was accused of rape and #shemustbebelieved, so he should be disqualified.
The head-spinning would be like a cat with buttered toast strapped to its back, then dropped from a mild height.
Captain Kirk: Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now listen to this carefully, Norman. I am... lying.
Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!
Captain Kirk: [giving him the same statement the androids have repeatedly given him several times before] I am not programmed to respond in that area.
"Also, $20k is below the poverty threshold for a family of one."
Really?
2018 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family/household Poverty guideline
1 $12,140
2 16,460
3 20,780
4 25,100
WSJ reported today that "Amazon, which has faced criticism about pay and benefits, said it would raise the minimum wage for all U.S. workers. The company will also start lobbying Congress for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 an hour"
Might not be mentioned in the original summary or article.
I don't think it will be all that slowly. Expect to see more and more pick&pack robots at Amazon real soon now.
They're not doing it for any of those reasons. They're doing it so that that can say they did it for positive reasons while simultaneously asking government for force their competitors to do the same, especially if it hurts the competition way more than it hurts Amazon.
Of course, that's why I said that the 2011 report was a bit dated...
The word "poverty" to me conjures images of Depression-era, dust-bowl families with 8 kids living in a one-room tar-paper shack, no electricity, no running water, no crops, no food, no way out. Or hungry people living in tents under the overpass because they lost their jobs. It doesn't normally invoke people who spend all the money they have (or can steal) on meth, nor people who've had their $70K SUV repossessed because they couldn't actually afford the payments.
Maybe that's just me. This 2011 Heritage report is a bit dated, but interesting view.
"Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor"
The Census Bureau’s annual poverty report presents a misleading picture of poverty in the United States. Few of the 46.2 million people identified by the Census Bureau as being “in poverty” are what most Americans would consider poor—lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, or clothing. The typical “poor” American lives in an air-conditioned house or apartment and has cable TV, a car, multiple color TVs, a DVD player, and a VCR among other conveniences. While some of the poor face significant material hardship, formulating a sound, long-term anti-poverty policy that addresses the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty will require honest and accurate information. Exaggerating the extent and severity of hardships will not benefit society, the taxpayers, or the poor.
U.S. median is $57,617 per Census.gov (Median income in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars).
Aren't there something like 57 "genders" now? And for the "gender fluid", would they only be allowed their board seat on the days when their fluidity coincides with the legal requirement?
It's like they looked over at Zimbabwe and said "Hold my beer..."
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
There are headcount taxes and overhead, like unemployment insurance or ADP paycheck processing. Any benefits that you pay you are now paying to more employees, e.g. if you give each employee two weeks paid leave, going from 3 to 4 employees (3 * 8 = 24, 4 * 6 = 24) you have additional overhead of two weeks of pay per extra employee. Wages+benefits usually runs 1.25 to 1.4 times the wage rate. It costs money to hire employees, "Not every new hire will demand the entire process, but even an $8/hour employee can end up costing a company around $3,500 in turnover costs, both direct and indirect. [Investopedia]" due to things like training, recruiting, workplace integration (a new desk&chair, or extra uniforms for the additional people).
Also, the people who had been working 8 hour shifts at $8/hour will probably actually be unhappy about getting their hours cut to 6, as they face a 25% decrease in take-home pay. Unless you want us to increase their pay so that they still make the same in 6 hours as they were making in 8...by which time you've raised the cost of each employee by 25% so that you can pay the new 4th employee.
They probably live in a country where some populist government (people's republic of ...) run by a charismatic strongman promising them salvation has seized farms (perhaps murdering the farmers in the process) and industries to be run by favored cronies. The farms stop producing food and the industries stop producing goods and the people live in fear of the government and/or the government supported gangs, the poor people will pile up.
So the people who work in groceries should work extra hours so that they can be "open an hour or two past normal hours?"
Ok, there's been a disconnect here somewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU were a socialist SJW (I've no idea what you believe in).
I latched onto the keyword "agenda" and went from there. When I said "but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.", I meant in the abstract the proposer of some sort of (non-)solution, not you as the original poster. That is, many proposed "solutions" appear to come from people far more interested in socialism than in science and their agenda (!) is that of SJW and not of a "climate warrior". And sadly, many of those people are "leaders" in the environmental/climate-change movements.
I'm FOR solar, and FOR wind, and recycling, and reducing my carbon footprint. Hell my wife and I just bought a 43 acre piedmont farm so we can be self sufficient and off the grid (one of the first major upgrades will be a solar plant; we had a microwave internet tower put in so we can work from home--zero commute emissions!).
I was trying to discuss the subset of AGW alarmists who do not seem to actually care about real solutions (carbon sequestration, solar, etc.) and instead have hijacked the potential crisis for their socialist political agenda (there's the word!) blathering on about income inequality instead of sustainable low-impact farming, crying about social injustices instead of anything that might actually help the situation. Also the related subset of AGW alarmists who are clearly in it to make a buck for themselves.
Those folks have hijacked what is most probably a serious situation and are not helping find real solutions. Let's talk about the problem and how to solve it.
Brawndo! It's got what plants crave! It has electrolytes!
Yep, it certainly appears that South Africa is on the fast track to ignoring all the lessons that should have been learned from the stellar success that was Mugabe's Zimbabwe experiment.
When environmentalist say we need fewer people, they always assume that they--of course--would be included in the group that gets to keep on living when the rest are euthanized or however they envision accomplishing their population reduction.
P.S. Has Paul Ehrlich EVER been right?
Optimum Human Population Size
By Gretchen C. Daily, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Paul R. Ehrlich
Although the tremendous size and rate of growth of the human population now influences virtually every aspect of society, rarely does the public debate, or even consider, the question of what would be an optimum number of human beings to live on Earth at any given time. While there are many possible optima depending on criteria and conditions, there is a solid scientific basis for determining the bounds of possibilities. All optima must lie between the minimum viable population size, MVP (Gilpin and Soule, 1986; Soule, 1987) and the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). At the lower end, 50 to 100 people in each of several groups, for a total of about 500, would constitute an MVP.
At the upper end, the present population of 5.5 billion, with its resource consumption patterns and technologies, has clearly exceeded the capacity of Earth to sustain it. This is evident in the continuous depletion and dispersion of a one-time inheritance of essential, non-substitutable resources that now maintains the human enterprise (e.g. Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1991; Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).
A world with 1.5 billion people using 4.5 TW of energy seems equally plausible and would carry a larger margin of safety. This is about the same number of people as existed at the turn of the century.
To summarize this brief essay, determination of an "optimum" world population size involves social decisions about the lifestyles to be lived and the distribution of those lifestyles among individuals in the population. To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technologies change radically, the optimum size of the human population lies in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people.
Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation. If nothing else, if we could run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I look forward to clean fusion plants (now supposedly only 20 years in the future!).
So please, folks, don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
For example, the IPCC report on climate change...Let's see...it doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things... It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.
But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it, with climate change to have the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice an