The Earth has a limted capacity to support life. We humans can not hog it all up for ourselves and we can
not continue to conduct activities that reduce this capacity. It is obvious that at some point our unrestrained
expansion and destruction will result in a cataclysmic imbalance. The ecosystem will crash and then
our civilization is over. Gone forever. Maybe even our species. Maybe even life on this planet.
Heed the wake up call, because the wake up slap in the face may come after it's too late to do anything about it.
The big TV shows the future we are headed for: coast-to-coast cities and dead oceans under a foul unbreathable
atmosphere - the inevitable result of centuries of pointless expansion, careless waste and intentional
ecological destruction. We will sicken, starve, suffocate, suicide, murder, canabalize, until there's no one left.
Roaches and vast clouds of flies will pick our bones clean. Then they will die and there will be no life worth
mentioning left. Eventually, with nobody around to maintain and operate the space shield, an asteroid will show up
to finish off whatever hardy microbes found sustinance in the toxic brew. Everything we built will be erased,
the Earth just another ball of molten rock orbiting an unremarkable star.
Maybe some intrepid explorers from another solar system will find one of our space probes in a few million years
and wonder where it came from. Then if they care enuff to bother, they mite find a few more in this solar system.
And maybe they will try to piece together a reasonable story of who we were and what happened to us.
The root cause for the world's environmental problems is excess human population.
Everything else is a side effect of supplying everybody with what they need and want, even if it doesn't need to
be done in such a dirty and destructive way. There are simply too many people on the planet for the ecosystem
to support at a modern standard of living. All the arguments against this conclusion can be washed away
with 2 simple questions:
1. What is the limit?
2. How many people do we need?
Depending on what news you've been fed over your life, it may take you a long time to consider the facts and
come to the only reasonable answer to both: LESS than there are now.
Any other conclusion is based on willfull ignorance and reckless stupidity. Trusting that a line from the Bible
will garrantee safety from worldwide famine no matter how many people there are is monsterously irresponsible.
"Go forth and multiply" was written by someone who had no concept of numbers beyond a million. If he did, he
would have added something like "stop at a billion until the lord provideth ye with more planets".
We are already seeing dire signs of ecological collapse so our situation is extreemly precarious.
The math on this is pretty simple:
The closer we are to the limit, the more vulnerable we are to fluctuations and interruptions of the food supply.
If we are past the limit, the ecosystem begins to break down and eventually collapses. The farther we are over
the limit, the faster that happens.
If you subscribe to the so-called 'pro-life' philosophy, which seems to imply that unborn human life is sacred
and outweighs all other considerations (paradoxically including living people), you need to know that if we
continue to add more and more humans the eventual result will be quadrillions of new lives!
Mostly flies, sure, but if you refuse to comprimise on quantity, you will be forced to sacrifice on quality.
It seems odd to me that these groups are consistently involved in what can most clearly be described
as a war on nature. When it is not directly by them, a little investigation will usually turn up one or
more of them providing support, creating policies, or promoting ideas that excuse the atrocities.
Yes, countless small businesses are doing their share of damage. And you will have no problem finding hunters,
pollutors, and animal experimenters who vote Democratic and are non-Christian. But given a chance to win a bet
on who mowed down that jungle, who sponsored that bear hunt, who dumped those rusting barrels full of hienous
glop, who said drowning those puppies is nothing to feel guilty about, are you putting your 1,000 bucks on the
neo-pagan hippy lady who runs the flower shop that still has a Barack Obama poster in the window or the Texas
oil CEO who faithfully attends Baptist services twice a week and proudly $upported Rick Perry for President?
There are people who believe that nature is here to serve us. They take some statements in the Bible to mean that
they can do ANYTHING they like against animals or the environment with no penalty. That any expense incurred to
avoid killing animals or destroying their habitats is pure waste. That the solution to any conflict between
nature and humans is a no-brainer: wipe it out and wipe it away.
Dominion over the Earth, free enterprise, conservative values are their license to kill.
The US government has not been keeping up with public opinion concerning the welfare of animals, both domestic
and wild. Whereas the typical American considers their pets as members of the family, the laws that guide the police,
courts, and government agencies still treat them as property. If your assclown gun nut neighbor shoots your dog,
he has a fair chance of getting away with merely paying for a replacement and not being charged with a crime.
Or, if he calls the police complaining that your dog is being aggressive, don't be surprised if the cop that
shows up shoots your dog!
Many of the stories we hear of animals escaping from the zoo end with trigger happy cops going on a safari. Same
deal when wild animals wander into town or some idiot blunders into their territory and gets mauled.
Rarely a week passes without some news of a government agency or the military doing something terrible to animals
or the environment. Sonic blasts from submarines deafening whales. Exploding cyanide traps intended to kill wolves
but also killing people's dogs. Poisoning lakes with arsenic to wipe out all life to hopefully get rid of an
invasive species. Enacting laws to punish whistle blowers for reporting farm animal abuse.
It makes me wonder if the Ayatollah Khomeini was on to something when he branded America "The Great Satan"!
The stories were frequent and bad enuff during the Obama administration, so how much worse will it get with
Trump's blatantly anti-nature attitude? His sons have proudly posed for pictures with endangered big cats they
killed. He put Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA - a climate change denier who used his position as Oklahoma
Attorney General to sue the agency 14 times over pollution limits.
The main thing the government does is make the rules to the game, therefor much of the evil being commited by
individuals and corporations gets added to the charges against Uncle Skam. This nation has over 200 years of
bad behavior commited by people who obviously did not have 'the greater good' in mind. Usually it is in the
interest of profit, but in too many cases, the only reasonable explanation is that the perpetrators were evil,
extreemly stupid or insane. That the government failed to stop them or actively supported them should alarm
all good citizens, especially since so much of it is done presumably on our behalf!
We all have to work together to change course as quickly as possible. The biggest thing most of us can do is
to not have any more children. I realized the danger way back in high school, so have no offspring. Altho I
don't fault couples who have 2 or 3 children that they can support and are raising them to be conscientous,
responsible citizens, there are way too many mindless lowlifes plopping out babies without the means to care
for them. They will outnumber 'smart' people soon, if they haven't already, so a world similar to the one
portrayed in Idiocracy is likely to become reality. If you think I'm wrong, watch some daytime trash TV
every day for a few weeks - Jerry Springer, Steve Wilcos, Divorce Court - there are dozens of them.
You'll get what I'm saying. And it doesn't help when all the celebrity chatter shows and news readers regularly
present birth stories, smiling brightly as if the parents have accomplished some great feat that will make the
world a better place. I apoligize for painting such a dark picture, and I know it's not going to help me win any
popularity contests (such as running for President), but attitudes must change.
As much as some people like to believe humans are 'better' than our genetic cousins, we are just
mutant apes who have benefitted from a great talent for abstract thought. Thinking that being smarter makes
our lives more important than a squirrel's leads to a slippery slope bottoming out at IQ based right-to-life
calculations. And thats a very steep & short slope! Quite a few people have basicly zero capacity
to accept new information, so are their lives of less value than a rat that can be trained?
My attitude is that we are stewards of the Earth. Without reference to self serving religious doctrines or
philosophical notions of manifest destiny, we have in fact put ourselves beyond the food chain, even tho we
are still feeding off of it. Our inventions give us absolute power over all other species, so will we choose
to be Angels or Devils from their perspective?
As President, one of the biggest things I could do is expand on women's reproductive rights. Pushing back
against the right-to-life idiots wont be easy, but there is too much at stake to let them impose their
ill-considered idiology on the world. They are religious zealots, plain & simple - just as bad as any jihadist.
Providing monetary incentives to encourage people to not have children could go a long way in reducing
the irresponsible behaviour by young adults and teenagers. Not only will it help to reduce the population in
the long run, it will soon begin to reduce poverty, prison overcrowding and the strain on schools.
I will start a major publicity campaign to educate Americans about the advantages of less people and the
dangers of too many. Hopefully, it will outlast my administration and as conditions in America improve,
the rest of the world will follow and we can avoid the vast clouds of flies epoch of the planet Earth.
Everybody working at all the various animal related agencies will be fired and replaced by people who have a
proven history of compassion for animals. If former employees can prove they are not sadistic nature haters,
they can get their jobs back. All the regulations these agencies operate by will be purged of the outdated
callus attitudes that have enabled the destruction and barbarizm.
The EPA and FDA will no longer be good buddies with the industries they are supposed to be regulating. When
oil spills and other disasters are the result of corruption or lax oversight, people will go to prison! Food,
drug and chemical company's profits will no longer be the main consideration for approval of new stuff. When
something alredy on the market is found to be harmful to us, animals or the ecosystem, it will be eliminated
immediately, not 'phased out' over a period of years. Companies that knowingly market harmful products will be
severely fined and the executives prosecuted. If they go out of business as a rezult - GOOD! Their demise will
be a loud & clear warning to all their competitors. No more bogus oversight bureaus, bribes, and general
chicanery like we saw with the BP gulf oil spill.
My administration will not only end the United States government's war on nature, it will employ our mostly idle
military to battle poachers around the world. There are too many short sighted, lazy, feeble andor corrupt
governments in areas that are home to the Earth's treasure of rare species. The nonprofit charities have been
unable to alter the trend toward extinction in spite of decades of donations because they have no real power.
Just as America occasionally intervenes when brutal regimes start attacking their own citizens, we will rescue
species that are being wiped out, even if they are not on the edge of extinction.
Sanctions against nations that participate in attacks that pose a danger to ecosystems or particular
species will be employed to the fullest effect until they comply, especially our allies - Japan's apparent
desire to wipe out large sea creatures, for example. If they can't be embarrassed into stopping on their own,
increasing levels of economic pressure, confiscation of their ships, and criminal prosecution will be used to
force compliance. How will history judge America if we sat idle as whales, dolphins and sharks went extinct?
Acquiring, processing and burning fossil fuels is the biggest secondary cause of environmental damage. Digging
up coal, drilling for oil, fracking for gas are all filthy dangerous activities. Climate scientists are
seriously worried that we could ignite a runaway greenhouse gas chain reaction in which vast quantities of
methane are released as the permafrost melts. Temperatures would rapidly climb to 150f, 200f, or higher,
leveling off only when the heat being radiated out matches that coming in from the sun. Needless to say,
we won't be here to see if any life somewhere deep beneath the ground survives to begin a new ecosystem.
There is more power pouring down from the Sun than we can possibly use. It is completely clean and free after
the initial equipment expense to convert it to electricity. It is downright silly to keep pursuing ever more
difficult to access fossil fuel deposits while ignoring the bountiful sunlight.
Nearly all the resistance to environmental protection regulations comes from the fossil fuel industry. They run
the propaganda campaigns denying global warming. Their interest is clear - they want to continue making money
doing what they know. They are beginning to feel the pressure of obsolescence as solar, wind and battery
technology advances. Using their cronies in the governments of the world to try to hinder this progress will fail,
so continuing to plan and invest in major new oil and coal projects is financially foolish as well as risking an
irreversible run away global warming chain reaction.
Providing financial incentives to help people switch to solar power and electric cars will reduce pollution
and create jobs in those industries. Boosting R&D budgets at government and private labs will accelerate
the transition. (see my NASA and R&D pages)
It is only a matter of time before a big asteroid slams into the Earth and causes mass extinction. We
currently have some ability to see it coming and a chance to divert it, but there is no dedicated program.
If NASA's Asteroid Watch suddenly detects a rock headed for us, it would be a mad scramble to cobble
together something to divert it. Maybe they would succeed. Maybe not. And what if there are a bunch of them?
What if a hostile alien race attacks by throwing rocks at us? So easy to do, so difficult to stop.
So far, the human race has been nothing but a blight to Mother Nature. Averting a disaster like the asteroid
that wiped out the dinosaurs would make up for alot of our past crimes against her.
Trump is a short sighted, petty minded, money grubbing con man. His apointment of Exxon CEO
Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State and Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA prove he does not
care about the environemt at all. If we are lucky, if the world is lucky, the TrumPutin scandal
will get him and his entire administration kicked out before they break something that can't be fixed.
The United States of America can't maintain it's image as a shining beacon to the world if it becomes a
giant dilapidated overcrowded toxic cloud spewing slum. It can't pretend to be the moral authority
while treating it's non human inhabitants like medieval torture chamber prisoners and ignoring the
atrocities being commited around the world.
Learn more about JO 753!
Here are links to my presence on the web:
Forums & Blogs