We humans are having such a dramatic impact on our planet that some leading scientists think the current era needs a new name. We're no longer in the Holocene epoch, they say.
| Comment: 
| Tools: 
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science. Thanks to our dedicated readers, the DeSmog project counters the seeds of climate confusion.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. The Desmog project is our answer to industry PR spin.
Thank you for all you do. Please donate what you can. Whether its $10 or $100 every bit helps.
Powered by PayPal
That's pretty sobering stuff. But it is about time we faced up to the fact that as the most successful species on the planet, we have multiplied to such an extent that we are now almost an infestation, damaging the systems that support us. And before people start jumping all over this as an "anti-human" post, let me say that I believe each of us has the intelligence and ability to reduce the population without resorting to any kind of Draconian measures. It's dead easy: if we all voluntarily had only one child per couple for a few generations, we could get a grip on rampant overpopulation and give ourselves some breathing space. I said, VOLUNTARILY -- China is an object lesson in how NOT to do it! Education, free birth control, access to family planning information, tax benefits for smaller families, retirement & geriatric support for people who choose not to have children at all -- there are all sorts of possible incentives.
Now I am going to brace myself for the Attack of the Trolls . . . sounds like a good idea for a movie.
Femack,
I think you're being overgenerous! Otherwise if humans are intelligent [an unproven hypothesis], why are there trolls who willingly accept the flimsiest whiff of not quite evidence for warming on any planet other than Earth, but refuse obdurately to acknowledge the overwhelming weight of peer reviewed science and evidence for warming & its causes on Earth?
Chris Rapley made the observation that there are ~ 80 000 000 unwanted births each year, which happens to match almost exactly the annual net population growth and that birth control could easily stabilise the Earth's population and give us much needed breathing-room.
To me this sounds too difficult a concept for mankind to grasp.
It's a simple solution, but it isn't necessarily an easy one to sell. Especially when there are those (chief among them His Holiness) who believe that the world can absorb as many new people as we can pop out, and won't even condone condoms. Then there are people who are culturally pressured to keep trying until they get a boy, or to have a large family as a desirable goal (Quebec springs to mind). That's why education and free access to birth control should be a key priority in the Big Picture.
80 million "unwanted" children/year is a preventable tragedy. As for "intelligent and able" I meant only as far as using birth control is concerned, not the ability to wrap one's mind around a scientific concept or reason an argument from beginning to end without insulting your opponent. Convincing those with a mental block re: whether or not there really is a problem might require an appeal to their more selfish instincts (fewer kids = more for ME) etc.
Number of greenhouse gas-emitting children produced by Pope Benedict XVI: zero
Number of greenhouse gas-emitting children produced by Fern Mackenzie: one
Offhand, I'd say His Holiness is exactly 100% less of a hypocrite than Fern Mackenzie.
Pope Benedict XVI may not have produced any biological children of his own, but how many "unwanted births" is he responsible for by promoting abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control? For that matter, how many cases of AIDS have been transmitted because of his holiness' ban on condoms?
As for my choice to stop at one child, my husband & I have produced one child. That's 2 reduced to 1 in the big picture. And when we're gone & my son and his partner produce one child, that too will be a reduction. You've tried this silly argument before, and it's still wrong. If you don't understand how ZPG works, you shouldn't be commenting on the issue.
Fern Mackenzie
"Pope Benedict XVI may not have produced any biological children of his own, but how many "unwanted births" is he responsible for by promoting abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control?"
Are you serious? Do you actually not see the utter absurdity of that statement, or do you simply choose to ignore it? You want to blame The Pope for "unwanted births" because he advocates sexual abstinence, and yet you absolve those who have quite obviously ignored his advice on the subject.
Astoundingly, you then believe those same people responsible for their "unwanted births", would actually care what The Pope has to say about condoms one way or the other?!
Exactly what kind of bizarre, tortured form of logic would lead you to those insane conclusions? You ascribe almost magical powers of influence to His Holiness when it comes to his views on condoms, while simultaneously having no influence when it comes to his views on abstinence. Riiiiight ...
Well, if you can believe that, then it follows:
"As for my choice to stop at one child, my husband & I have produced one child. That's 2 reduced to 1 in the big picture."
Okay, I just double-checked with my calculator. Apparently 2+1 still equals 3. Maybe my calculator isn't smug and liberal enough?
"And when we're gone & my son and his partner produce one child, that too will be a reduction."
You're certain of that, are you? Or maybe your son and his "partner" will convert to Catholicism and have ten children? Perhaps your spawn will have multiple partners over the course of his life, siring one or more children with each.
But, no, that couldn't possibly happen. Whereas The Church's policies are utterly futile/omnipotent (as suits your whim) -- you seem to have the abiltiy to control the actions of others in the future, even long after you are dead.
You certainly don't lack for hubris nor hypocrisy, but the fact is, you and your husband/"partner" have unleashed a loaded gun. And as eager as you are to place blame on The Pope, you seem to have no hesitation in giving yourself smug credit. Why not take credit for that?
"If you don't understand how ZPG works, you shouldn't be commenting on the issue."
I'd say I'm getting a very good picture of how it works. It seems to run on the hot air generated by sanctimonious and self-congratulatory people like you.
Find a mirror.
Look into it...find the image...look in the eyes, and repeat after me:
"I am a horse ass."
If you have problems with the prescription, repeat dosage...multiple times if required.
After an extended period of time if you still have a urge to post venomous, vapid or otherwise useless posts substitute the word "You" in the above quoted statement.
Repeat until civil tongue returns.
I took Rob to task for rude behavior and I would be unfair not to make the same point here. I appreciate Fern's point that Rob has a bad history. I therefore suggest that, rather than respond to this troll with trollery of our own, we simply ignore him. Let his bile go unanswered. Ask yourselves, "What motivates this person to engage in this behavior?" Surely he has no interest in civil discussion of the issues. Surely he has no interest in the truth. I surmise that he has but one objective here: to injure those whom he regards as enemies of his tribe. To respond to his trollery is to acknowledge that he has inflicted some injury.
The only purpose for participating in blog discussions is to interact with others. The uttermost foiling of that purpose is to deny the troll the ugly interaction he craves. Henceforth, Rob is on my blacklist -- I shall simply ignore everything he writes. Who will join me in this?
And I take your point of honor. In Tom's defense, I should also say that he has restrained himself admirably from responding "in kind" to Rob's posts (and others like him), but sometimes they really do get hurtful and none of us is perfect, after all. If I were to tell you what I really think of Rob and his ilk I would probably be banned from the site! As you say, it's very tribal behaviour.
I will try in future to just skip over & ignore whatever he/they have to say.
And BTW, welcome aboard. I enjoy your posts.
Fern Mackenzie
"I will try in future to just skip over & ignore whatever he/they have to say."
So this makes, what? The eleventh or twelve time you've declared you are going to do that?
How's that working out for you so far?
You're right.
I came in tired last night, saw that evil rant, thought I had to respond and of course...fed the troll.
I'm in...a late New Year's resolution: ignore him.
My original intent was an addition to Femack's incentive list...
The Four Horsemen. Nothing new, but if we keep this AGW wagon on its reckless course the Horsemen will have an ever expanding territory to "ride" in...
If the current epoch is to be called the Anthropocene, then obviously the ensuing epoch will be called the Morticene.
Which reminds me of that great series of books detailing the history of humanity in five volumes:
Man The Thinker
Man The Inventor
Man The Creator
Man The Conqueror
Man The Lifeboats
I needed a laugh! Even if the humour falls a bit into the black . . .
Fern Mackenzie
Few things are as frightening to me as the possibility that the historical solutions to overpopulation might be taking over. You see it in the wild all the time -- disease, famine and conquest over the other pack's territory when there are too many monkeys or wolves. Man is unique in waging war -- and I'll kneecap my son before I'll let him march away! But more likely in the present scenario it would be nothing so "civilized". More likely it would take the form of anarchy and a return to tribal conflicts.
I had hoped that we had risen above all of that, and could solve our problems co-operatively. A quick glance at the international headlines dashes that pretty roundly!
So in the circumstances, I feel like a cock-eyed optimist - because I really do believe that we will survive somehow. Alas, not all of us, but many. And I believe we have the capacity to learn from the experience. (Well, SOME of us anyway -- with a few notable exceptions that shall remain nameless!)
In my region (eastern Ontario) we are marking the 10th anniversary of an extreme weather event: the 1998 Ice Storm. My village was without power for 8 days, and the emergency shelter stayed open for two weeks to feed & provide for the outer areas that took longer. The ability of the community to spontaneously come together for the common good was inspiring, and from that I take great comfort. There's hope for us yet, Horsemen notwithstanding (but just in case, "Man the Lifeboats!").
Fern Mackenzie
Rob, you are raving.
Rob, your comment is way out of line. It's rude and it's vicious. You would do better to confine your comments to ideas rather than than insults.
Was there something I wrote which was factually in error? Or is it more that you find the existence of unambiguous facts insulting?
Oh, sorry. You seem to prefer "ideas" to facts.
Rob, calling somebody a hypocrite is an insult, not a fact. You should be ashamed of yourself for engaging in such childish behavior. Let's elevate the level of this discussion.
On another thread you mentioned that you weren't familiar with the history on this blog. You should be aware that this is quite typical of the way Rob behaves. It's annoying, and it's juvenile, but nothing seems to get through to him. We have tried to ignore him, but he just keeps coming back, more offensive every time. It seems to be a strategy, to disrupt the discussion and keep us focussed on his rants, rather than anything that might actually be productive and informative, such as your recent posts. You just have to work around him, talk over him, or whatever, and not get diverted after his rather smelly little red herrings.
Fern Mackenzie
Number of degrees increase in the temperature in North Dakota resulting from the latest bit of hot air spewed out from Rob: 23 F (or 12.8 C), as Bismarck, ND is that much above normal today.
The point your pushing is to not change how we live, but to reduce the amount of people at our current state of living. This is asinine and defunct. How about we continue to bring brilliant minds into the world and stop trying to play god. If you really believe humans have that big of an impact on the biosphere then live cleaner. Technology should be allowing us to live with a lower carbon footprint each year, not the lack of future footprints.
Attack of common sense and application of green technology instead of depopulization. Your comments are dilluted and I'm sure many things you observe around you are never beyond a perspective of selfishness. If you truly believe depopulation is the answer then kill yourself as a martyr for your beliefs and we'll see if it makes a difference in the end.
Your Troll in arms,
Komhon Senze
Getting a grip on the population will only help to prevent making things worse. At the same time, we have to bring all of our collective intelligence and wisdom to bear on the crisis of AGW, by whatever means we can devise. These are not separate problems, but two sides of the same coin.
And BTW, in every lifestyle decision I make, the first criterion is "How will this affect the environment?". It's a way of life for me, as it is for many. I stopped at one child (and he's a "brilliant mind", if I do say so . . .), and I do everything within my power to reduce my carbon footprint, including educating my son to the issues and the high stakes involved.
I think you mean "deluded,", not "dilluted (sic)," but in either case, I did not say depopulation, which implies culling existing human beings, but rather what I said was to reduce the population without resorting to any kind of Draconian measures, ie, employing incentives for people to have fewer children.
For the moment, I have no plans to off myself, thanks. Sorry to disappoint.
Fern Mackenzie
So might we now be in the earliest stages of the ATM (Anthropocene Thermal Maximum) event?
For anyone who is sincerely interested in learning more about issues surrounding overpopulation and global action to promote zero population growth, may I recommend the following web sites. Neither of these groups is "anti-human" or into extreme fanatical measures to "de-populate" the world, as some in the paranoid/xenophobe community would have us believe, but rather they promote education, accessibility to birth control & family planning information, and so on to help avert a humanitarian crisis.
I first encountered Population Connection some 35 years ago in high school, when they were known as ZPG: Zero Population Growth. They made a lot of sense then, when the population was a "mere" 4.085 billion. But now it's 6.775 billion (see: http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop), up a staggering 65%. It's time to stop "breeding mindlessly like brewers' yeast in a vat of molasses" (Farley Mowat), and consider the strain we are putting on the planet.
http://www.populationconnection.org/
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=754§ion=8
Fern Mackenzie