That's what's really happening here. All the people that actually work, including those that do useful things without getting paid, total, is ~ 2 billion, and dropping fast. And if you killed off the other 4 billion, keep in mind that a few hundred million of those 2 billion are essentially employed to babysit the 4 billion "useless" people.
Besides adding value to the stock market. You mean letting people that actually *know* what something is worth price it correctly ? That's called insider trading, and will land you in jail !
First rule society places on a casino is that everybody is equally likely to loose money.
All money is other people's money: my expenditure is your income and vice versa.
No it's not. Profits (if they result from actual new value, like in a car company, as opposed to taxes and de-facto taxes like the phone company) aren't other people's money. They're "new" money that didn't really come from anywhere. That money can support taxes without any impact to the economy.
Everything else, which is the large majority of money even in a capitalist economy, yes, that's other people's money.
Of course, it is not impossible to have profits in a communist economy. It's just less likely. Capitalism forces innovation, and forces efficiency increases. That sucks really badly, of course, for those who can't increase efficiency, but the alternative is a slow descent to the point where the state can no longer support keeping it's citizens alive, and either revolution or mass murder has to follow that point.
You do realize that plant roots didn't cook when the atmosphere was much higher in co2 than today and had massive amounts of methane as well, right ? While it was warmer at that point in time, it wasn't nearly warm enough to cook anything.
There are cycles. No one says otherwise. Then there is warming that is on top of the cycles. SO when cyclic events are what they where, say 100 years ago, the temperature does not return to the temperature it was 100 years ago.
In the sense that there are individual cycles, like the orbit of the earth around the sun, yes there are cycles. If you combine all cycles, they are chaotic. While it's not entirely impossible that all cycles take up the same previous position as they did at some previous point in time, that is such an extremely rare event that it doesn't happen in practice. Once you take even 100 factors that influence the climate, every day in the entire history of the planet will essentially have a unique position in the "cycle-space". It just isn't that simple.
You act like there is an end? there isn't a practical one for humans. Your whole point would have merit, if we stopped putting CO2 in the air, and wanted to just lower the condition until CO2 naturally lowers.
Then it has merit. Oil usage will drop for the simple reason that easily extractable oil is finished and we won't be able to keep up today's extraction levels. You can't burn things you don't have.
And even if the sahara become perfectly habitable, more farm land is lost. But if we don't stop, then another couple of degree after that, we would loose this hypothetical sahara as well.
How do you get to that point ? It is plainly established that the previous warming massively expanded the amount of arable land, supported by historical fact. By the way, have you checked on a map just how massive the Sahara is ? If it were to become arable, it could easily feed 15 billion people.
"a ~1% drop in solar output would more than cancel out global warming, " no it wouldn't. It might prolong the time to get the the tipping point, but it won't stop it. And of course dimming the sun has other unpleasant effect.
Yes it would. You forget that we are very close to the absolute maximum of energy ANY amount of co2 in the atmosphere can absorb. It isn't a linear relation at all. Removing 100ppm from the athmosphere would more than half the energy co2 absorbs globally, while adding 100ppm will make less than 5% difference in absorption. An athmosphere made of nothing but co2 would only absorb about 7% more energy than what co2 is currently absorbing. None of these amounts come even close to 1% of the solar output hitting our planet.
Given the fact that solar output varies 4% on a regular basis for long times, I think we'd find plants well-prepared for a 1% drop by evolution. Sure it would have some effect, but I think you'll be disappointed. The cooling cycle that that output reduction would initiate would have a much more dramatic effect than the output change itself.
And while we are looking at a warming cycle short term, we're looking at a much bigger cooling in the mid-term. In the next 100 years, if it is valid to go by past variation, temperature will rise 1.5, maybe 2 degrees. It is equally obvious that in the next 1000-2000 years temperature will drop 16 degrees. Why ? Because it has done so dozens of times before, at a relatively regular pace, and we're at the warmest point in time that graph.
There's plenty of meteors and lost asteroids carrying earth-evolved bacteria, viruses and even plants and basic -a few dozen cells at most- animals to different planets and even different solar systems already under way. Humans, being large mammals, have way too many mechanical dependencies to survive on anything but a near-exact copy of earth anyway. I mean if gravity would be more than 30% different from the earth, either direction, humans won't be able to survive.
And those bacteria and viruses carry human genes they copied while infecting us. So it won't take 3 billion years to evolve something like humans this time around, as all the difficult questions have been solved : those bacteria carry plans for all the processes that our body needs, they just don't carry the layout for our actual body. They need to find a new working layout, a way to package the different processes into organs and bodies. It's the difference between building a car starting with a fire and a mine of iron ore, versus building one with the parts just lying around.
Galactic conquest is already far under way, and probably unstoppable.
Besides, an argument that we are not a typical place in the universe is not generally accepted.
True, but not everyone agrees. And we do know that our place in the universe is very special indeed. The number of lucky breaks the earth has gotten in the past few billion years is astonishing. Catastrophic events, like a close supernova, happen once yearly in our galaxy. Yet earth has not experienced a single one, and we're pretty much the only part of the milky way so blessed, apparently. Furthermore, the earth has effective radiation shielding due to the interplay of the sun and earth's magnetic field, which is lacking on every other planet in this solar system (technically Pluto hasn't been examined, and if there is a 10th planet, it too is unexamined, but they're not in the habitable zone anyway). The solar system as a whole has a (very low density) atmosphere that also functions as a radiation shield. Our solar system is on a collision-free trajectory, also not all that common : we have been safe for billions of years, and as far as we can tell, we're perfectly OK for the next 6 billion years at least. And while that is not extremely rare for a system, apparently ~30% do collide with others. It seems unlikely life would survive that (although we don't know). Temperatures on earth have been remarkably stable over billions of years, whereas the same is not true for other planets in our solar system. There have been no truly cataclysmic events even while the potential for them is there : there's a few dozen asteroids in our solar system that are big enough that a collision with the earth would radically alter it's shape for an extended period of time, maybe even shatter the planet if we were truly unlucky. There's plenty of objects that if they were in a similar orbit as earth, would "steal" earth's atmosphere, yet none are (in fact earth probably stole Mars' atmosphere). And it goes on and on and on and on.
In the end it's a philosophical argument (ie. a pointless argument : reasoning without data), because we have no clue what the minimum necessary conditions for life and long-term evolution are in the first place. Can life evolve without an atmosphere ? Good question. Without water ? Good question. In heavy radiation environments ? Good question. We won't really know until we go and check things out.
People already pay taxes to their countries, which in turn pays for the representatives that sit in the UN.
Sadly, no. You will find that while many countries get billed for what they promised to pay to the UN, the US is the major contributor that actually pays. Most European nations actually pay at least 50% of what they agreed to pay. Most dictatorships have yet to hand over their first dollar. The US covers the difference.
There is a recent push (20 years or so) that wants the UN to be presented as the NWO Government, and make everyone in the world a subject. This rhetoric should bother you very much.
But the UN represents those people... and gives them a tiny minority of the votes. More than two thirds of the votes go to dictatorships and islamic hellholes, who amongst other things have established as a publicized and official goal to achieve "non-interference in internal affairs" of those dictatorships, which have of course historically covered war between them... they don't even think it's worth hiding their plain and obvious intentions.
The major intention of > 66% of the UN general assembly is to prevent any form of social or political advance in those countries.
Just like it was when it was called League of nations.
The argument against that is that while there are billions of habitable planets, it will only take the human race ~100 million years (maybe less) to colonize them all. The chances of being within 100 million years evolutionary distance of another species is negligible.
Given that other intelligent species would do the same, that means we have to be the first, or earth would have been populated by another intelligent species which wouldn't have let us evolve in the first place.
And of course, no matter how large the group and how insignificant the chances of being the first, someone is first. If you don't see anyone in front of you, but have lots of good theories of millions behind you, you may be the first.
I don't get this argument. Let's trace the steps...
1) global warming... warms the planet 2) it has warmed before 3) profit ! (or we profited back then) 4) but this warming will be bad because it is different
Is that the argument ? Because what grounds do you have ? I mean sure there's uncertainty about what's going to happen, but when you down that path, why wouldn't you have uncertainty about global warming not suddenly reversing for a long time ? Plenty of ways that could happen, right, like the asteroid, or simply slightly reduced solar output (a ~1% drop in solar output would more than cancel out global warming, and solar output varies by up to 4% without any identifiable reason, and we know the sun has had long periods of reduced and increased activity). Or nuclear war. Or...
It is certainly true that most places would become easier to live in if average temperature would go up (and before you say it, the most common cause of desertification is cooling, which results in the inability of the air above the desert to transport water vapour, resulting in no rain, resulting in what you see on the ground. It does seem that the warming of the last 30 years has partially reversed the advance of the sahara for example. Or at least... something did)
Actually this article doesn't have anything to do with global warming as such. It merely states that humans occupy a little under 50% of the planet and that they've seen serious changes in things like forests when a certain plant species manages to capture 50%+ of the total area.
This article is merely stating that there's too many humans, apparently making the argument that if global warming doesn't do it, something else will.
As to why an article like this gets published in nature... that is a real mystery.
It only takes an act of congress to land troops on foreign soil with the intention of taking over territorial control. Everything else the president can do (outside of US national borders)... but congress can impeach him for it.
So there's no sneaky law violation going on here. It's just that what everybody knew 4 years ago is now in plain sight, Obama's far more of a warmonger than Bush, and does exactly what you'd expect a populist with declining popularity to do : start wars. He's much worse than Bush, Obama will start wars for his own personal electoral good, and presumably for other even more banal reasons. Bush at least believed he was doing the right thing, even if we did not agree on what exactly the right thing was.
That's not guaranteed to work, and a politician would be risking his skin doing that. And they're so famous for taking big risks with their own skin...
Besides, it's not even necessary. If the NSA gave evidence that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in 6 months, congress would approve war. And frakly, so would I and any other sane American. The alternative is ending the oil era on Iran's terms, and will start a nuclear war in the middle of the region supplying 70% of the world's energy. The alternative is letting every economy crash to 1900 levels, and causing mass casualties worldwide the next winter.
So in order to avoid a potential future problem we should walk eyes open into a catastrophe now ?
Keep in mind that the vast majority of people worldwide actively oppose (or live under governments that actively oppose) free speech, and even basic freedoms. The large majority opposes equal rights for women. The large majority opposes anything remotely like porn. The large majority seeks to enforce copyright, but are completely toothless at the moment. You can go on like this.
You're right in a theoretical sense, no question there. But we live in the real world here.
What really needs to happen is that a private company needs to launch a huge network of small leo satellites that can provide basic unfiltered connectivity for anyone worldwide in a way that's hard to jam, a huge number of tiny satellites with a network between them and an orbit slightly lower than the ISS orbit. Something like GPS but with say 2mbit data connectivity. Well, preferably 10 of those companies should exist. And yes, a thoroughly American company should do this, preferably claiming that their operations take place in "international" space, where no laws apply. In the US, such an argument might actually work.
Plus this isn't much different for other professions. I know one freelance programmer that made more than $2 million in one year. I doubt he'll be able to dupllicate that the following years, but when it comes to the top 10 individuals worldwide, pretty much any profession at all is going to have ridiculous compensation. Any, from waiter (I'm sure the majordomus for the Spanish monarchy takes home more than half a million bucks each year, yet when push comes to shove, he's a butler), to prostitute, to the top plumbers for the oil industry (I believe the minimum wage for an offshore plumber for Shell is $300k, and you get 6 months off a year. If you're really good, I'm sure at least double that is possible. But there's a reason for these high wages).
If you don't trust any government to do that, you need to give control of it to a few dozen entities in the private sector... wait... that's exactly what the US does !
And the US is completely unique in that. Even the Euro states almost exclusively have registrars that are small government departments... and most non-western states don't even pretend it's even vaguely separate from the government, even when immediately results in incompetent morons running the DNS servers.
And look at how the US historically behaved versus the UN on censorship. It's just not a contest.
You cannot start a court case without sending physical registered mail to the listed address if it's within the US. If such a case catches you by surprise you're legally incompetent. Not having a postal address, or not reading registered mail sent to it, is a way to fall into quite a few legal surprises.
Don't do that (btw half of the domain registrars offer a PO box + forwarding in the US. If the domain is important, get that)
1) the real-world situation. Of course this doesn't require an act of congress, as the military forces involved aren't controlled by congress or the president. Nor does it take an act of war for the US to get into a fight in international waters for example. And if an enemy force operates within the borders of the US, the president is free to act without congressional approval (to illustrate an extreme case, if someone bombed congress killing most of the representatives). 2) the legal term. War is essentially a series of laws that need to be "enabled" by congress which give the president the power to invade foreign soil, bring it under US government control using violence (if he can do it peacefully, he's at liberty to do it without congressional approval)
So in reality the US can get into a conflict without congressional approval. The US president (and thus the army) cannot start a large scale military offence on foreign soil without congressional approval. Most everything else is perfectly allowed, even without so much as informing congress.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what's really happening here. All the people that actually work, including those that do useful things without getting paid, total, is ~ 2 billion, and dropping fast. And if you killed off the other 4 billion, keep in mind that a few hundred million of those 2 billion are essentially employed to babysit the 4 billion "useless" people.
Besides adding value to the stock market. You mean letting people that actually *know* what something is worth price it correctly ? That's called insider trading, and will land you in jail !
First rule society places on a casino is that everybody is equally likely to loose money.
All money is other people's money: my expenditure is your income and vice versa.
No it's not. Profits (if they result from actual new value, like in a car company, as opposed to taxes and de-facto taxes like the phone company) aren't other people's money. They're "new" money that didn't really come from anywhere. That money can support taxes without any impact to the economy.
Everything else, which is the large majority of money even in a capitalist economy, yes, that's other people's money.
Of course, it is not impossible to have profits in a communist economy. It's just less likely. Capitalism forces innovation, and forces efficiency increases. That sucks really badly, of course, for those who can't increase efficiency, but the alternative is a slow descent to the point where the state can no longer support keeping it's citizens alive, and either revolution or mass murder has to follow that point.
Yeah, let's kill the sick ! After all, they must have done something to upset gaia, don't they ?
Were you ever ill ?
You do realize that plant roots didn't cook when the atmosphere was much higher in co2 than today and had massive amounts of methane as well, right ? While it was warmer at that point in time, it wasn't nearly warm enough to cook anything.
What you're saying is insane.
There are cycles. No one says otherwise. Then there is warming that is on top of the cycles. SO when cyclic events are what they where, say 100 years ago, the temperature does not return to the temperature it was 100 years ago.
In the sense that there are individual cycles, like the orbit of the earth around the sun, yes there are cycles. If you combine all cycles, they are chaotic. While it's not entirely impossible that all cycles take up the same previous position as they did at some previous point in time, that is such an extremely rare event that it doesn't happen in practice. Once you take even 100 factors that influence the climate, every day in the entire history of the planet will essentially have a unique position in the "cycle-space". It just isn't that simple.
You act like there is an end? there isn't a practical one for humans. Your whole point would have merit, if we stopped putting CO2 in the air, and wanted to just lower the condition until CO2 naturally lowers.
Then it has merit. Oil usage will drop for the simple reason that easily extractable oil is finished and we won't be able to keep up today's extraction levels. You can't burn things you don't have.
And even if the sahara become perfectly habitable, more farm land is lost. But if we don't stop, then another couple of degree after that, we would loose this hypothetical sahara as well.
How do you get to that point ? It is plainly established that the previous warming massively expanded the amount of arable land, supported by historical fact. By the way, have you checked on a map just how massive the Sahara is ? If it were to become arable, it could easily feed 15 billion people.
"a ~1% drop in solar output would more than cancel out global warming, "
no it wouldn't. It might prolong the time to get the the tipping point, but it won't stop it. And of course dimming the sun has other unpleasant effect.
Yes it would. You forget that we are very close to the absolute maximum of energy ANY amount of co2 in the atmosphere can absorb. It isn't a linear relation at all. Removing 100ppm from the athmosphere would more than half the energy co2 absorbs globally, while adding 100ppm will make less than 5% difference in absorption. An athmosphere made of nothing but co2 would only absorb about 7% more energy than what co2 is currently absorbing. None of these amounts come even close to 1% of the solar output hitting our planet.
Given the fact that solar output varies 4% on a regular basis for long times, I think we'd find plants well-prepared for a 1% drop by evolution. Sure it would have some effect, but I think you'll be disappointed. The cooling cycle that that output reduction would initiate would have a much more dramatic effect than the output change itself.
And while we are looking at a warming cycle short term, we're looking at a much bigger cooling in the mid-term. In the next 100 years, if it is valid to go by past variation, temperature will rise 1.5, maybe 2 degrees. It is equally obvious that in the next 1000-2000 years temperature will drop 16 degrees. Why ? Because it has done so dozens of times before, at a relatively regular pace, and we're at the warmest point in time that graph.
There's plenty of meteors and lost asteroids carrying earth-evolved bacteria, viruses and even plants and basic -a few dozen cells at most- animals to different planets and even different solar systems already under way. Humans, being large mammals, have way too many mechanical dependencies to survive on anything but a near-exact copy of earth anyway. I mean if gravity would be more than 30% different from the earth, either direction, humans won't be able to survive.
And those bacteria and viruses carry human genes they copied while infecting us. So it won't take 3 billion years to evolve something like humans this time around, as all the difficult questions have been solved : those bacteria carry plans for all the processes that our body needs, they just don't carry the layout for our actual body. They need to find a new working layout, a way to package the different processes into organs and bodies. It's the difference between building a car starting with a fire and a mine of iron ore, versus building one with the parts just lying around.
Galactic conquest is already far under way, and probably unstoppable.
Besides, an argument that we are not a typical place in the universe is not generally accepted.
True, but not everyone agrees. And we do know that our place in the universe is very special indeed. The number of lucky breaks the earth has gotten in the past few billion years is astonishing. Catastrophic events, like a close supernova, happen once yearly in our galaxy. Yet earth has not experienced a single one, and we're pretty much the only part of the milky way so blessed, apparently. Furthermore, the earth has effective radiation shielding due to the interplay of the sun and earth's magnetic field, which is lacking on every other planet in this solar system (technically Pluto hasn't been examined, and if there is a 10th planet, it too is unexamined, but they're not in the habitable zone anyway). The solar system as a whole has a (very low density) atmosphere that also functions as a radiation shield. Our solar system is on a collision-free trajectory, also not all that common : we have been safe for billions of years, and as far as we can tell, we're perfectly OK for the next 6 billion years at least. And while that is not extremely rare for a system, apparently ~30% do collide with others. It seems unlikely life would survive that (although we don't know). Temperatures on earth have been remarkably stable over billions of years, whereas the same is not true for other planets in our solar system. There have been no truly cataclysmic events even while the potential for them is there : there's a few dozen asteroids in our solar system that are big enough that a collision with the earth would radically alter it's shape for an extended period of time, maybe even shatter the planet if we were truly unlucky. There's plenty of objects that if they were in a similar orbit as earth, would "steal" earth's atmosphere, yet none are (in fact earth probably stole Mars' atmosphere). And it goes on and on and on and on.
In the end it's a philosophical argument (ie. a pointless argument : reasoning without data), because we have no clue what the minimum necessary conditions for life and long-term evolution are in the first place. Can life evolve without an atmosphere ? Good question. Without water ? Good question. In heavy radiation environments ? Good question. We won't really know until we go and check things out.
People already pay taxes to their countries, which in turn pays for the representatives that sit in the UN.
Sadly, no. You will find that while many countries get billed for what they promised to pay to the UN, the US is the major contributor that actually pays. Most European nations actually pay at least 50% of what they agreed to pay. Most dictatorships have yet to hand over their first dollar. The US covers the difference.
There is a recent push (20 years or so) that wants the UN to be presented as the NWO Government, and make everyone in the world a subject. This rhetoric should bother you very much.
+1
I think it's pretty obvious that the internet is paid for mostly by profits of nationalized telcos.
But the UN represents those people ... and gives them a tiny minority of the votes. More than two thirds of the votes go to dictatorships and islamic hellholes, who amongst other things have established as a publicized and official goal to achieve "non-interference in internal affairs" of those dictatorships, which have of course historically covered war between them ... they don't even think it's worth hiding their plain and obvious intentions.
The major intention of > 66% of the UN general assembly is to prevent any form of social or political advance in those countries.
Just like it was when it was called League of nations.
The argument against that is that while there are billions of habitable planets, it will only take the human race ~100 million years (maybe less) to colonize them all. The chances of being within 100 million years evolutionary distance of another species is negligible.
Given that other intelligent species would do the same, that means we have to be the first, or earth would have been populated by another intelligent species which wouldn't have let us evolve in the first place.
And of course, no matter how large the group and how insignificant the chances of being the first, someone is first. If you don't see anyone in front of you, but have lots of good theories of millions behind you, you may be the first.
I don't get this argument. Let's trace the steps ...
1) global warming ... warms the planet
2) it has warmed before
3) profit ! (or we profited back then)
4) but this warming will be bad because it is different
Is that the argument ? Because what grounds do you have ? I mean sure there's uncertainty about what's going to happen, but when you down that path, why wouldn't you have uncertainty about global warming not suddenly reversing for a long time ? Plenty of ways that could happen, right, like the asteroid, or simply slightly reduced solar output (a ~1% drop in solar output would more than cancel out global warming, and solar output varies by up to 4% without any identifiable reason, and we know the sun has had long periods of reduced and increased activity). Or nuclear war. Or ...
It is certainly true that most places would become easier to live in if average temperature would go up (and before you say it, the most common cause of desertification is cooling, which results in the inability of the air above the desert to transport water vapour, resulting in no rain, resulting in what you see on the ground. It does seem that the warming of the last 30 years has partially reversed the advance of the sahara for example. Or at least ... something did)
Actually this article doesn't have anything to do with global warming as such. It merely states that humans occupy a little under 50% of the planet and that they've seen serious changes in things like forests when a certain plant species manages to capture 50%+ of the total area.
This article is merely stating that there's too many humans, apparently making the argument that if global warming doesn't do it, something else will.
As to why an article like this gets published in nature ... that is a real mystery.
The drug would be oil I guess ? Well, don't worry, we're about to run out of the drug anyway, so what's the point of all this anyway ?
It's not like we're going to learn how to burn non-existent fossil fuels.
It only takes an act of congress to land troops on foreign soil with the intention of taking over territorial control. Everything else the president can do (outside of US national borders) ... but congress can impeach him for it.
So there's no sneaky law violation going on here. It's just that what everybody knew 4 years ago is now in plain sight, Obama's far more of a warmonger than Bush, and does exactly what you'd expect a populist with declining popularity to do : start wars. He's much worse than Bush, Obama will start wars for his own personal electoral good, and presumably for other even more banal reasons. Bush at least believed he was doing the right thing, even if we did not agree on what exactly the right thing was.
That's not guaranteed to work, and a politician would be risking his skin doing that. And they're so famous for taking big risks with their own skin ...
Besides, it's not even necessary. If the NSA gave evidence that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in 6 months, congress would approve war. And frakly, so would I and any other sane American. The alternative is ending the oil era on Iran's terms, and will start a nuclear war in the middle of the region supplying 70% of the world's energy. The alternative is letting every economy crash to 1900 levels, and causing mass casualties worldwide the next winter.
So in order to avoid a potential future problem we should walk eyes open into a catastrophe now ?
Keep in mind that the vast majority of people worldwide actively oppose (or live under governments that actively oppose) free speech, and even basic freedoms. The large majority opposes equal rights for women. The large majority opposes anything remotely like porn. The large majority seeks to enforce copyright, but are completely toothless at the moment. You can go on like this.
You're right in a theoretical sense, no question there. But we live in the real world here.
What really needs to happen is that a private company needs to launch a huge network of small leo satellites that can provide basic unfiltered connectivity for anyone worldwide in a way that's hard to jam, a huge number of tiny satellites with a network between them and an orbit slightly lower than the ISS orbit. Something like GPS but with say 2mbit data connectivity. Well, preferably 10 of those companies should exist. And yes, a thoroughly American company should do this, preferably claiming that their operations take place in "international" space, where no laws apply. In the US, such an argument might actually work.
Plus this isn't much different for other professions. I know one freelance programmer that made more than $2 million in one year. I doubt he'll be able to dupllicate that the following years, but when it comes to the top 10 individuals worldwide, pretty much any profession at all is going to have ridiculous compensation. Any, from waiter (I'm sure the majordomus for the Spanish monarchy takes home more than half a million bucks each year, yet when push comes to shove, he's a butler), to prostitute, to the top plumbers for the oil industry (I believe the minimum wage for an offshore plumber for Shell is $300k, and you get 6 months off a year. If you're really good, I'm sure at least double that is possible. But there's a reason for these high wages).
I like the way you think, but I fear it may be misguided. If what you say is true ... why did shareware die ?
If you don't trust any government to do that, you need to give control of it to a few dozen entities in the private sector ... wait ... that's exactly what the US does !
And the US is completely unique in that. Even the Euro states almost exclusively have registrars that are small government departments ... and most non-western states don't even pretend it's even vaguely separate from the government, even when immediately results in incompetent morons running the DNS servers.
And look at how the US historically behaved versus the UN on censorship. It's just not a contest.
You cannot start a court case without sending physical registered mail to the listed address if it's within the US. If such a case catches you by surprise you're legally incompetent. Not having a postal address, or not reading registered mail sent to it, is a way to fall into quite a few legal surprises.
Don't do that (btw half of the domain registrars offer a PO box + forwarding in the US. If the domain is important, get that)
This is not being tried by the security council.
Is this proposal coming from the security counicil ? No ...
There is confusion here about what "war" means.
1) the real-world situation. Of course this doesn't require an act of congress, as the military forces involved aren't controlled by congress or the president. Nor does it take an act of war for the US to get into a fight in international waters for example. And if an enemy force operates within the borders of the US, the president is free to act without congressional approval (to illustrate an extreme case, if someone bombed congress killing most of the representatives).
2) the legal term. War is essentially a series of laws that need to be "enabled" by congress which give the president the power to invade foreign soil, bring it under US government control using violence (if he can do it peacefully, he's at liberty to do it without congressional approval)
So in reality the US can get into a conflict without congressional approval. The US president (and thus the army) cannot start a large scale military offence on foreign soil without congressional approval. Most everything else is perfectly allowed, even without so much as informing congress.