Science is truly powerful, and I can say that because I’m literally arguing with you over it.
Ok, then listen to the scientists: Technology alone can’t get out of the shit we’re in. We need a fundamental shift in how we’re dealing with our ecosphere or we’ll have gone through a mass extinction in about the same timeframe.
Geoengineering is basic science
You have no idea about complex systems, climate and chaos theory. Geo-engineering is siake oil the destructive status quo is trying to sell us while the rich build post-apocalyptic bunkers on New Zealand.
Read Malthus
The guy who eugenics is based on? No thanks, bro. Read the Club of Rome’s report. Or Andreas Malm.
we should never have made it this far.
You sound a lot like the “oh gawd” “morons” right now, if you talk about that destiny shit.
You have no idea about complex systems, climate and chaos theory. Geo-engineering is siake oil the destructive status quo is trying to sell us while the rich build post-apocalyptic bunkers on New Zealand.
Yes, it’s complicated, you know what else is a complex system? The human body. Better not ever take any medicine or anything really.
We predicted climate change, we can use the same techniques to stop it.
I like how geo-engineering is snake oil, while instead losing 3/4 of the population and having the rest live like cavemen is somehow the rational and safe choice.
We can’t sustain the current population on the planet, so either we figure out how to fix that problem, or we get rid of a lot of population, you’re welcome to volunteer.
I don’t want to argue with someone who can’t go a single paragraph without strawmanning me, or giving false equivalencies. Especially if they’re a fucking eugenicist. Bye, Crypto-Nazi!
You clearly do not understand what eugenics is, and I was literally arguing against that, as that is the only logical conclusion to keep the planet at its natural human carrying capacity.
Have you not thought through the consequences of your beliefs? Do you not realize reducing human industry and agriculture to “sustainable levels” means dramatically reducing human population because we cannot remotely sustain what we have now?
Do you know where the fertilizer used to make the majority of our food from otherwise marginally arable land comes from?
Don’t you high-horse me. You’re arguing in fa-our of a system that’s literally grouing and growing and growing. Further destroying the biosphere and therefore destroying the foundation of what we need to survive. You don’t destroy the biosphere for so-called “progress” that’s sells us fake-solution (electric vehicles that are unsupportable at the scale they’re marketed after fake solution (AI, that’s driving up the energy requirements needed for the transition to a more sustainable power grid) only to deepen the titanian rift between the poor and the filthy rich.
You’re the worst kind of eugenicist. The one who claims they have moral high-ground. “We never should have come that far”
Ok, then listen to the scientists: Technology alone can’t get out of the shit we’re in. We need a fundamental shift in how we’re dealing with our ecosphere or we’ll have gone through a mass extinction in about the same timeframe.
You have no idea about complex systems, climate and chaos theory. Geo-engineering is siake oil the destructive status quo is trying to sell us while the rich build post-apocalyptic bunkers on New Zealand.
The guy who eugenics is based on? No thanks, bro. Read the Club of Rome’s report. Or Andreas Malm.
You sound a lot like the “oh gawd” “morons” right now, if you talk about that destiny shit.
Yes, it’s complicated, you know what else is a complex system? The human body. Better not ever take any medicine or anything really.
We predicted climate change, we can use the same techniques to stop it.
I like how geo-engineering is snake oil, while instead losing 3/4 of the population and having the rest live like cavemen is somehow the rational and safe choice.
We can’t sustain the current population on the planet, so either we figure out how to fix that problem, or we get rid of a lot of population, you’re welcome to volunteer.
I don’t want to argue with someone who can’t go a single paragraph without strawmanning me, or giving false equivalencies. Especially if they’re a fucking eugenicist. Bye, Crypto-Nazi!
You clearly do not understand what eugenics is, and I was literally arguing against that, as that is the only logical conclusion to keep the planet at its natural human carrying capacity.
Have you not thought through the consequences of your beliefs? Do you not realize reducing human industry and agriculture to “sustainable levels” means dramatically reducing human population because we cannot remotely sustain what we have now?
Do you know where the fertilizer used to make the majority of our food from otherwise marginally arable land comes from?
Don’t you high-horse me. You’re arguing in fa-our of a system that’s literally grouing and growing and growing. Further destroying the biosphere and therefore destroying the foundation of what we need to survive. You don’t destroy the biosphere for so-called “progress” that’s sells us fake-solution (electric vehicles that are unsupportable at the scale they’re marketed after fake solution (AI, that’s driving up the energy requirements needed for the transition to a more sustainable power grid) only to deepen the titanian rift between the poor and the filthy rich.
You’re the worst kind of eugenicist. The one who claims they have moral high-ground. “We never should have come that far”