Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years', claims leading scientist

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#1
Human race 'will be extinct 'within 100 years due to population explosion' | Mail Online

As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.

And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.

He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and 'unbridled consumption.’

Fenner told The Australian newspaper that 'homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.'

'A lot of other animals will, too,' he added.

'It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'

Since humans entered an unofficial scientific period known as the Anthropocene - the time since industrialisation - we have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet impact, he said.

Fenner, 95, has won awards for his work in helping eradicate the variola virus that causes smallpox and has written or co-written 22 books.

He announced the eradication of the disease to the World Health Assembly in 1980 and it is still regarded as one of the World Health Organisation's greatest achievements.

He was also heavily involved in helping to control Australia's myxomatosis problem in rabbits.

Last year official UN figures estimated that the world’s population is currently 6.8 billion. It is predicted to exceed seven billion by the end of 2011.

Fenner blames the onset of climate change for the human race’s imminent demise.

He said: 'We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island. (You mean, we'll build stone statues with huge heads and then migrate to Mars?)

'Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable changes in the weather already.'

'The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years.

‘But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.'

Retired professor Stephen Boyden, a colleague of Professor Fenner, said that while there was deep pessimism among some ecologists, others had a more optimistic view.

'Frank may well be right, but some of us still harbour the hope that there will come about an awareness of the situation and, as a result the revolutionary changes necessary to achieve ecological sustainability.'

Simon Ross, the vice-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, said: 'Mankind is facing real challenges including climate change, loss of bio-diversity and unprecedented growth in population.'

Professor Fenner's chilling prediction echoes recent comments by Prince Charles (that great scientific mind) who last week warned of ‘monumental problems’ if the world’s population continues to grow at such a rapid pace.
 

S O F I

Administrator
Staff member
#2
Am I one of the few who doesn't care at all about these doomsday predictions? I really don't care if the human race continues to survive and evolve but I do hold the belief that humans are innovative and adaptable to the point where they can figure shit out. Therefore, whenever I see shit like this, I'm like "meh".
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#3
Yeah I remember reading that. He's not a scientist anymore. He retired 20-some years ago and is like almost 90 right now. I also remember reading that since his retirement he didn't care much about his field.
While these problems mentioned are true the rest of that sounds just like mumbling of an old man that is supposed to make some people aware. Or a guess. Either of these two.
 

Synful*Luv

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#4
IDC.. i'll be dead in 100 years. So will my dogs. Who cares what happens to the people who are left. LOL

However, if the end result of this is a zombie apocalypse.. I will be pissed that I am too old to participate in it as an active member of a zombie killing party.
 

Ristol

New York's Ambassador
#7
Have you guys ever heard of the Doomsday Argument? It's the scariest thing I've ever read, although it doesn't put the probablity anywhere near as soon as Professor Fenner does.

Google "mathematical probability of doomsday" and read up on it, if you'd like. You may have to use your brain, but it makes perfect sense. I will refrain from trying to explain what it is here. It took me a while to understand it.

And of course there's the inevitable Zombie infestation.
 

Pittsey

Knock, Knock...
Staff member
#8
I find these people tiresome. First the world will get hot due to fossil fuels, then when it doesn't they work out it is climate change caused by pollution. Then some genius comes up with 1 reason why we are all gonna die, then another. But make no mistake the human race will die. They all agree on that.

I have a theory. And my theory works on the best way a scientist gets a grant. To scare the shit out of people, and to come up with wild conclusions to show 50 years of research hasn't been a waste.
 

Bobby Sands

Well-Known Member
#10
^^if there is life on other planets, then thats the reason i hope we never find it.

we dont deserve to colonise other planets after destroying our own because of our greed.
 

Bobby Sands

Well-Known Member
#12
i dont know if anyone watched the Ross Kemp show on the Amazon rain forest on Sky. absolutely sickening how its being destroyed because greedy bastards want gold and cocaine.
 

Pittsey

Knock, Knock...
Staff member
#13
^^if there is life on other planets, then thats the reason i hope we never find it.

we dont deserve to colonise other planets after destroying our own because of our greed.

I don't think it's destroyed. Everytime I fly I look at the country I am landing in, or taking off from, and all I see is green. Very few built up areas surrounded by green. You'd be surprised.
 
#14
So, I hear that California (a place where many of our American produce is gown), have 1 Year of water left. Not to mention the toxins seeping through from fracking. They're spending billions for sea water filtration, which I'm guessing requires large amount of energy. To add insult to injury, the efficiency of such operation is something like 50units of pure water for 100units of sea water, and the other 50 which contains twice the amount of sea salt just get dumped back into the ocean. I'm guessing that's not a welcoming news for marine life.

I no longer have the faith I used to have on technology but I'll give it some slack and ask - will nanotechnology be able replace our pollinators which are disappearing at a frightening rate? Or better yet will we succeed in overcoming the evil of GMO?

Are the many extinctions of animals happening right now just an indication that this cycle is over and another will begin?

Rising sea level? Oh who cares! I live on the hills and the beach will be closer. But water vapor is the largest contributor to global warming. Melting ice = more water vapor and higher temperature = more water vapor, right? And they seem certain that there are massive amounts of CO2 absorbed in the ice. All of these failed legislation regarding carbon emission will be largely pointless. And if the increase in military spending world wide in preparation for the Battle of the Arctic is any indication, the ice will be gone and there's nothing we can do about it.

Are we really running out of fossil fuel? The current global chaos seems to indicate that something is up. And no, I don't believe in the story being told of extraterrestrial Light taking down the Dark illuminati cabal which supposedly explains the obvious desperation by the cabal. I hope I'm wrong.

I know retards will continue to kick up their air conditioning as the summers get hotter, so do we have enough electricity for that? How long until blackouts and Fukushima X 100?

I don't think its matter of how many trees in the amazon. The circulation is changing, the colder winters are, I believe, part of that change. So, don't believe the hype of denial. The residents of coastal cities will likely find it increasingly difficult to have a peaceful existence. Food will be scarce. More fortunate countries will attempt to build walls to prevent the displaced population from taking their share, which will no doubt lead to fighting...

But who cares about that? I got bills to pay. I can't be fucked with that. I'm busy like busy is the new social status. I just hope being busy fighting over energy, water and protein has the same social status. Can't wait to tweet about it.
 
#15
Here's a second opinion

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

by Robert M Carter

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signalhas been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-2C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).
Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 6C over the next 100 years.
Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 2C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5 A 2C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 1C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.
 
#16
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/03/31/profiting-climate-change

A recent Bloomberg View (2/24/14) headline reads, "Profit From Global Warming or Get Left Behind." In his new book, WINDFALL (New York: Penguin, 2014), veteran journalist McKenzie Funk traveled the globe for six years, following the money in twenty-four countries to profile "hundreds of people who felt climate change would make them rich."

In a separate interview, Funk notes that "on Wall Street you no longer get a lot of climate denial." Largely indifferent to the causes of climate change, his respondents decided early on that investing in green technology was a losing proposition. Instead "the warmer the world, the less habitable it became, the bigger the windfall."

In 2008, Royal Dutch Shell developed two sophisticated climate-risk scenarios called Blueprints and Scramble. The first modeled a greener future while the latter predicted – due to government inaction – a future of droughts, floods, heat waves and super storms. By 2012, Shell executives confided to Funk "We've gone to Scramble. This is a Scramble kind of world. This is what we're doing." Another Shell official opined "I will be one of those persons cheering for an endless summer in Alaska."

The author's message is that in the short term, there will be definite winners and losers because ecological catastrophe is "...not necessarily a financial catastrophe for everyone." And while readers of this newspaper will temporarily avoid the most dire consequences of globing warming, upwards of one billion other human beings won't be spared.
During this interim period, the phrase 'a rising tide will lift all yachts' is more than a metaphor:
  • Many people consider water a necessity, a basic human right, but investment advisers and their well-heeled clients view water as blue gold, the "petroleum of the next century" whose value as an asset class will surpass all other physical commodities. Money is pouring into "hydrocommerce" including water rights and water asset hedge funds.
  • ARCADIS, a Dutch engineering firm offering flood protection saw its revenues jump 26 percent in 2013. For $8 billion, they will wall off Manhattan from the next Sandy.
  • AIG's private fire fighters will race to cover palatial estates in the Los Angeles suburbs with special flame retardant material while less well-heeled citizens watch their homes burn to the ground.
  • Barney Schauble of Nephia, a huge hedge fund, is certain that "more volatile weather creates more risk and more appetite to protect against that risk," hence the introduction of something called "weather derivatives."
  • A London-based investor is pouring money into Russian farmland and global supermarket chains because climate change's droughts, fires, desertification and flooding will adversely affect crop yields. As another analyst puts it, "People will always pay to keep eating."
  • One fund manager, bullish on reinsurance companies, confidently told Funk that flooding caused by climate change allows for higher premiums so "hurricane season is actually quite a positive thing."
  • Although not mentioned in this book, Senator James Inhofe (R. Okla) wants to funnel even more money toward Wall Street via "Disaster Savings Accounts," whereby wealthy individuals can obtain $5,000 tax breaks to mitigate extreme weather events. Extending political chutzpah to its outer limits, Inhofe recently authored The Greatest Hoax, a book claiming that global warming is a massive conspiracy designed to increase government regulation.
  • A warmer world means the expansion of dengue fever beyond the tropical zones. The solution? Britain's Oxitec Corporation foresees a patented product to counter the mosquito-born disease as a surefire money maker.
  • Perhaps more ominous, rising sea levels make Bangladesh "ground zero" for climate change. India's response is a 2100 mile, floodlit, electrified barrier, the "fence of shame," erected to prevent some twenty-five million Bangladeshi climate refugees from crossing the border when one-fifth of their county is under water.
  • I anticipate university level Environmental Finance Centers to shift from environmental protection to favorably position graduates to to take advantage of the looming ecological crisis.


...
In other words, we're fucked so who cares.
 
#17
We must revisit Club of Rome when dealing with Environmentalism
...
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

The environmental movement has been described as the largest and most influential social phenomenon in modern history. From relative obscurity just a few decades ago it has spawned thousands of organisations and claims millions of committed activists. Reading the newspaper today it is hard to imagine a time when global warming, resource depletion, environmental catastrophes and 'saving the planet' were barely mentioned. They now rank among the top priorities on the social, political and economic global agenda.

Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good honest decent citizen. Multi-national companies compete fiercely to promote their environmental credentials and 'out-green' each other. The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions. But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?

While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.

I am not a conspiratorial person by nature and was faced with a dilemma when I first read their reports. But it's all there - in black and white. The CoR claims that "we are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse" and "our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth." In the end I came to the conclusion that there are two possibilities – either the CoR wrote all these reports and setup a vast network of
supporting organisations just for fun or they actually believe what they have written and are working hard to fulfill their role as the self-appointed saviours of Gaia.

Based on my close observation of their actions, and watching the recommendations made by the CoR many years ago now being adopted as official UN and government policy – well, I have become personally convinced that they are deadly serious. On this website I try to use quotes and excerpts as much as possible and let the reader reach their own conclusions.

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently
founded two sibling organizations, theClub of Budapestand the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.
 
#18
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn..._information_is_always_better_status_quo.html

Democratic societies face two options in the post-Snowden era. The easier one is to continue business as usual and pretend that the NSA's insatiable desire for data is just an aberration that can be rectified by tinkering with various aspects of our existing techno-legal apparatus: We can tighten leaky data protocols, build more encryption into communication networks, pass new laws to oversee the NSA.

The more challenging option is to let Snowden's revelations stand in for more than just reckless administrative overreach by a few rogue bureaucrats. Here we are facing an emerging and mostly unaddressed threat to the democratic ethos—and it's only going to get worse as the means to collect, record, and analyze data become cheaper and more ubiquitous.

The reason why this threat has mostly gone unnoticed is simple: Such a conclusion would contradict the rosy narrative of the information economy, which assumes that, when it comes to information, growth can go on forever. Google, Facebook, and hundreds of their copycats in Silicon Valley operate on the premise that there's no limit to how much data can be produced, collected, traded, and shared. For them, more information is always better—and we'd better get it fast.

The parallels to those parts of the economy not yet subsumed under the capacious umbrella of “information” are illuminating. For a very long time, the assumption of infinite growth—with GDP as the sole benchmark for assessing government policy—has ruled supreme here as well. The first dissident voices in the early 1970s quickly drowned in the free-market sloganeering of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but the critical questioning of growth as the sole focus of economic activity resumed during the last decade, driven by concerns over global warming.

Today, this critical agenda is being pursued by the adherents of the “degrowth” movement—popular in Europe but enjoying very little traction in the United States. The goal of this movement is not just to scrutinize the ecological wisdom of continuing in the current pro-growth mode but also to question the wisdom of using indicators like the GDP to assess and formulate public policy. As Yves-Marie Abraham, a Canadian sociologist and one of the proponents of the degrowth agenda, puts it, “[T]his is not [about] the decline of GDP, but the end of GDP and all other quantitative measures used as indicators of well being.”

We need new models to think our way out of the democratic deficit that Snowden revealed.

This is not the time or place to assess the merits of the degrowth agenda with regard to the economy. But it's hard to deny that it has presented many interesting intellectual challenges to mainstream economics. A robust defense of the pro-growth agenda today requires addressing concerns over climate change as well as explaining why there's no simple linear relationship between growth and happiness. If more growth doesn't make us happier, why should it guide our economic policy?

As an alternative paradigm for arranging productive activity, the degrowth agenda has resulted in at least some provocative new thinking about politics and economics. There is no such alternative paradigm with respect to information yet. The existing efforts to think of different ways to relate to technology and information smack of privatized and transcendentalist solutions that work at the level of individuals, not collectives: We are encouraged to explore “digital detoxing” to reinvigorate our sense of reality, to install apps that would make us more “mindful,” to spend time in camps that ban gadgets from their premises.

None of these solutions offers a coherent intellectual alternative to the current paradigm of “more information is always better.” Degrowth theorists invoke the convenient but real bogeyman of global warming to reorient our thinking process. The vision of such a disaster, however, has so far been missing from the information debate. All we see are concerns about personal health, shortening attention spans, distraction. These are concerns about individuals, not collectives. No wonder they lend themselves to private solutions like apps to regain mindfulness.

What would the appropriate equivalent of global warming be in this case? Perhaps it's the gradual evaporation of the democratic spirit from our political system. This evaporation is happening as a naive belief in Big Data forecloses the spaces that have previously been open to public deliberation—who needs this messy debate about alternative ends when you have the data to select the best possible means?—while producing citizens who, caught up in the endless feedback loops of modern bureaucratic systems, surrender the political process to the technocrats, always pleased to nudge and tinker on the micro level but rarely interested in macro-level systemic change.

Instead of challenging Silicon Valley on the specifics, why not just acknowledge that the benefits it offers are real—but, like an SUV or always-on air conditioning, they might not be worth the costs? Yes, the personalization of search can give us fabulous results, directing us to the nearest pizza joint in two seconds instead of five. But these three seconds in savings require a storage of data somewhere on Google's servers. After Snowden, no one is really sure what exactly happens to that data and the many ways in which it can be abused.

For most people, Silicon Valley offers a great and convenient product. But if this great product will eventually smother the democratic system, then, perhaps, we should lower our expectations and accept the fact that two extra seconds of search—like a smaller and slower car—might be a reasonable price to pay for preserving the spaces where democratic politics can still flourish.

The market-based solutions to the privacy problem advanced by some critics of the current system—Jaron Lanier, for example, argues that people should be allowed to own and trade their own data, supported by a strong property regime around data—are unlikely to be any more effective in countering this slow erosion of democracy than the market-based solutions to global warming. Remember the Emission Trading System once celebrated by the European Union? It has been a remarkable failure.

The problem we face is not a lack of control over individual data. It's the fact that, armed with so much data, modern political systems seem to believe that they can dispense with citizens—while citizens, enjoying themselves in the digital cornucopia of “content,” are all too happy to abandon the realm of the political. To create a personal market in data under these conditions would only be to speed up the already fast decline of the democratic system.

Whether it's by applying ideas from degrowth or by embracing some other intellectual paradigm that could challenge the “more information is always better” narrative, we badly need new models to think our way out of the democratic deficit that Snowden revealed. The Snowden debate needs thinkers who are as fluent in code and constitutional law as they are in economics and politics.
 
#19
Bees
http://thegazette.com/2014/03/23/winter-stings-iowas-honey-bee-population-2
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2013/05/0086.xml
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/monsa...rtly-responsible-for-the-collapse-of-the-bee/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070182
http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/
https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/abo...edhoneybeeslinkedtonewdiseasesinwildbees.aspx
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/02/whats-killing-bees-plot-thickens

Mass Extinction
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/24/mass-extinction-study/13096445/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/sixth-mass-biological-extinction-event_n_5621215.html
http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...t-pushes-ocean-limit-unseen-300-million-years
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sixth-mass-extinction.html
http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/03/are-we-middle-sixth-mass-extinction
http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/

Battle of the Arctic
http://rt.com/news/240741-canada-arctic-resources-military/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-launches-arctic-military-drills-29662022
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/12/10/battle-arctic-canada-russia-spar-northern-land-grab
http://theweek.com/articles/455552/battle-arctic
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ignoring-resource-rich-region-as-ice-recedes/
http://rt.com/usa/cold-war-arctic-us/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/battle-for-the-arctic-heats-up-1.796010
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-for-arctic-edge/
http://www.economist.com/news/china/21606898-china-pursues-its-interest-frozen-north-polar-bearings
http://thediplomat.com/2013/06/chinas-arctic-strategy/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/24/india-and-china-in-the-arctic/
 
#20
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...o-a-desert-and-there-are-no-contingency-plans

US produce grown in Cali

-99 percent of the artichokes
-44 percent of asparagus
-two-thirds of carrots
-half of bell peppers
-89 percent of cauliflower
-94 percent of broccoli
-95 percent of celery
-90 percent of the leaf lettuce
-83 percent of Romaine lettuce
-83 percent of fresh spinach
-a third of the fresh tomatoes
-86 percent of lemons
-90 percent of avocados
-84 percent of peaches
-88 percent of fresh strawberries
-97 percent of fresh plums

Fuck an asparagus, but I need my lemons!!
zombie-veggies.gif
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top