World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A second Notice

Let's look at the graphs: here

I used to think things would change and environmental politics would grow stronger, but I eventually realised that most people were not going to change their behaviour and that politicians would just continue fiddling while Rome burned.

On a lighter note:



The end of the world kicks ass!

I'm not terribly concerned about Climate Change because warming is good for humans. It's the fresh water problem that concerns me, and the fact that there is a huge population boom in Africa and few of those countries are food exporters. It's crazy. We're told to control our mating practices, but they can have children willy-nilly and no one says a word. It's crazy.

There is a stupid article on Apricity which is about how scientists want to get rid of black people. Lol. yeah right.

OsricPearl wrote:I'm not terribly concerned about Climate Change because warming is good for humans. It's the fresh water problem that concerns me, and the fact that there is a huge population boom in Africa and few of those countries are food exporters. It's crazy. We're told to control our mating practices, but they can have children willy-nilly and no one says a word. It's crazy.

There is a stupid article on Apricity which is about how scientists want to get rid of black people. Lol. yeah right.

People have been told for years that the world is in danger from over population,when in fact the opposite is going to be the problem.
It is strange for me to see the younger generation putting off marriage and children. Many smart ,educated western women are choosing not to have families at all. I don't know if it is for selfish reasons,maybe they are afraid of harming the planet,a negative view of the world or maybe there are simply not enough suitable men?
Whatever the reasons,they should realize that being a mother is a very important wonderful thing!

I just googled "ageing population not a problem" and, sure enough, various articles came up from that angle. When experts disagree with each other, how do we decide what the truth is? Well, we just don't know. Life is so complex we cannot bank on any of these predictions. But I think it is basic common sense to be careful with natural resources and to avoid polluting the environment a lot with substances we don't fully know the effects of.

Unearthing oxygen-starved bacteria might worsen climate change

A recently-released federal report has finally credited humans with causing climate change, but we might have more to worry about than fossil fuel emissions. While we knew bacteria in earth's soil releases almost a third of the carbon dioxide that reaches the atmosphere every year, a portion of this population has gone overlooked. A new study has found that bacteria which don't require oxygen to produce CO2 occur in more areas than previously thought. And while its production is far lower than normal (aerobic) processes, that rate will likely increase if the surrounding soil was exposed to air or when the global climate warms up.

(Read about the report here: https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/04/federal-report-humans-cause-climate-change/)

Stanford scientists forced bacteria into oxygen-starved (anaerobic) environments where they produced far less CO2, according to their study released today in the journal Nature Communications. In this mode, the bacteria decomposed far fewer carbon-rich lipid and wax molecules, which dropped carbon dioxide production by a factor of 10.

Of course, the model could shift the other way: If previously oxygen-deprived bacteria is exposed (say, if rigorous farming disrupts the soil), they could increase by tenfold the amount of CO2 they put into the atmosphere. Similarly, warming climate -- or different irrigation patterns as humans adjust to changing weather -- could accelerate soil bacteria's carbon dioxide production.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/25/unearthing-oxygen-starved-bacteria-might-worsen-climate-change/

I've always introspected on this topic a few times in the past and its true for each localized locale in this world. Population growths are a problem; especially with the globalized world we have now. That will result in high poverty rates, criminality and other undesirable factors society shouldn't have that may come about internally or via huge, undesirable emigrations en masse through successive waves. Which is a problem with the modernization of society that imbalances nature/natural world; where organisms would be naturally controlled through checks and balances via the predator-prey symbiosis. Which humans have taken themselves out of this natural chain. Which is problematic because humanity has an innate tendency for being territorial, selfish and very ego driven. Which is why humans do this with one another via cultural, ideological or religious reasons. We are tribal by nature on a subconscious level; when a perceived outsider challenges those notions established in stabilized cultures. You will see inevitable clashes between two incompatible groups; for good reasons too in order to protect the interests established by a person's ancestors.

^ I think 'ego driven' is a key thing here. I used to wonder why rich people kept on trying to make more and more money when they already had all they needed. But now I think in many cases the answer is that wealth is a status symbol for them and they can never get enough status, always trying to prove they are better than someone else.

Neon Knight wrote:^ I think 'ego driven' is a key thing here. I used to wonder why rich people kept on trying to make more and more money when they already had all they needed. But now I think in many cases the answer is that wealth is a status symbol for them and they can never get enough status, always trying to prove they are better than someone else.

I do not judge people by how much money they have.  I don't feel envy or negative feelings towards others material wealth.  Money is not everything.
Poor people can have egos bigger than rich people.  I see poor people that feel angry and entitled,it is called class warfare,pitting the poor against the rich.
Some people are rich because they inherited their money,while others acquired their wealth through talent,intelligence,ambition and hard work.
To me ,those are all admirable human qualities.

Sary wrote:

Neon Knight wrote:^ I think 'ego driven' is a key thing here. I used to wonder why rich people kept on trying to make more and more money when they already had all they needed. But now I think in many cases the answer is that wealth is a status symbol for them and they can never get enough status, always trying to prove they are better than someone else.

I do not judge people by how much money they have.  I don't feel envy or negative feelings towards others material wealth.  Money is not everything.
Poor people can have egos bigger than rich people.  I see poor people that feel angry and entitled, it is called class warfare,pitting the poor against the rich.
Some people are rich because they inherited their money, while others acquired their wealth through talent, intelligence, ambition and hard work.
To me, those are all admirable human qualities.

I generally agree. I wasn't making a point about about socio-economics, but rather that most people have an instinct, rooted in our pre-history, to keep on accumulating things to satisfy needs for security and status. But we need to recognise when such behaviour becomes excessive and curb it if we are to 'save the planet'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5126917/Synthetic-clothes-fibres-fleeces-damaging-oceans.html

Washing synthetic clothes such as fleeces is 16 times more damaging for the ocean than microbeads, a report claimed yesterday. While the Government is moving to ban microbeads, the artificial fibres rinsed from our clothes are more numerous and more damaging to marine life, researchers said.

The fibres – invisible to the naked eye – are released into the water supply while they are washed and are so small they cannot be filtered by water treatment plants. Alternatives to plastic fibres include textiles made of waste products including coffee grounds, orange peel or algae, experts have suggested.

But the industry continues to make garments from synthetic fibres as clothing production worldwide has doubled in the past 15 years.

Fuelling this rise is a 'growing middle class population' across the globe and 'fast fashion' – quick turnaround of new styles, more fashion collections each year and low prices . . . Researchers called for people to wear clothes for longer periods, use recycled fabrics and even to rent items instead of buying them.

More than 55 per cent of all clothing made is polyester – one of the plastic fabrics that produces high levels of microfibres. The damage caused by microfibres occurs when they are eaten by sea creatures such as shellfish and plankton. The fibres also end up in other fish – and studies have found they ultimately end up in food consumed by humans. 'We end up eating our own clothes,' Rob Opsomer, one of the authors, told the Times.

Neon Knight wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5126917/Synthetic-clothes-fibres-fleeces-damaging-oceans.html

Washing synthetic clothes such as fleeces is 16 times more damaging for the ocean than microbeads, a report claimed yesterday. While the Government is moving to ban microbeads, the artificial fibres rinsed from our clothes are more numerous and more damaging to marine life, researchers said.

The fibres – invisible to the naked eye – are released into the water supply while they are washed and are so small they cannot be filtered by water treatment plants. Alternatives to plastic fibres include textiles made of waste products including coffee grounds, orange peel or algae, experts have suggested.

But the industry continues to make garments from synthetic fibres as clothing production worldwide has doubled in the past 15 years.

Fuelling this rise is a 'growing middle class population' across the globe and 'fast fashion' – quick turnaround of new styles, more fashion collections each year and low prices . . . Researchers called for people to wear clothes for longer periods, use recycled fabrics and even to rent items instead of buying them.

More than 55 per cent of all clothing made is polyester – one of the plastic fabrics that produces high levels of microfibres. The damage caused by microfibres occurs when they are eaten by sea creatures such as shellfish and plankton. The fibres also end up in other fish – and studies have found they ultimately end up in food consumed by humans. 'We end up eating our own clothes,' Rob Opsomer, one of the authors, told the Times.

Almost everything is unhealthy or damaging. Maybe Earth will survive if humans die out.

Uggg .... maybe the earth will survive if humans die out/save the planet ? all of this talk is making me think about "The Church of Euthanasia "


I don't even know what to call this,some kind of sickness of the soul.

Sary wrote:Uggg .... maybe the earth will survive if humans die out/save the planet ? all of this talk is making me think about "The Church of Euthanasia "  


I don't even know what to call this,some kind of sickness of the soul.

I thought Church of Euthanasia is just a title of a bizarre movie, but I read its real. I would ban this sect.