The Need to Breed

[The Grand Nudger]

We are at our limit and we have a civilization that, for the most part, doesn't give a shit or is incapable of "modifying." Wishful thinking, as in some cases "modifying" includes the application of technologies that don't even exist.

I just mentioned a technology that does exist. Admittedly it isn;t the cheapest solution and therefore not likely to be shown any sort of preference. I've also mentioned other water saving (and emission saving) technologies as simple as row covers and drip tube, which is predicted to become industry standard.

I don't know what devastation you're referencing. Clarification of your question.

Pick your poison. If we talk about the devastation of the rainforests, for example, you're likely to find hefty US investment - and returns- in the project, yes? The overall global warming pie, heavy US representation. Garbage floating in the pacific...US again.

They are forever and always have been directly tied together. Also, you didn't come close to answering my question by asking me a question. Also, 7 billion people using up every resource on this planet and polluting the atmosphere 24/7 is not what I would call a "small portion."

Take a look at these per capita emissions figures and you tell me whether it looks like a small portion of us or all of us are doing the vast majorty of the polluting Cin. This is just emissions, mind you, ad doesn;t take into account a plethora of other pollutants (or the forces driving the pollution). Hey Aussies, eat shit and die btw (just kidding, lol, but surprised that you're dirtier than we are as of the time of this little write-up)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...f-co2.html

Take special note of India btw. These guys are the big hitters in the over-population arena...and they happen to have the lowest emissions per capita of anyone on the list......Hell, these people should be having more kids and Aussies and Americans should all take a long walk off a short pier.

On an additional note, I would like to get one thing straight just for my own future clarification ...
Do you agree with the majority of the world's scientists, that earth is experiencing global warming?
And if you do, do you agree with the estimations made about greenhouse effects in the coming 25 years?
I just realized that I never even established whether or not you take global warming even remotely seriously.

Seriously enough that I'm an activist at a state and local level that spends the majority o my time trying to bargain with an industry that is openly hostile to the idea of sustainable operations. Serious enough to make it my 9-5 (such as it is) at my families expense (I made alot more money building guidance chips amigo...). Serious enough that I can't help but disabuse people of popular notions which may not, strictly speaking, be grounded in fact (my beef with organics and sustainability, for example). I don't always agree with the varying and competing estimates, and I frequently don't agree with the doomsday projections based on estimates.

You don't have to be a fucking science denier to suggest that we might be in a position to handle these problems we've made for ourselves, that we're not looking at the end of the world. The end of the world as we know it...I hope so (but we could probably get away with alot less change than I would like..imho).

(I always thought I wore this shit on my sleeve, I was more than a little worried that I talk about it entirely too much...lol, sustainable this, ag that...apparently, this is not the case.)