I like to include insight with art because I am also a writer. Often times the words that go with the piece are completely unrelated. I don't care.

Well I didn't say it's complete or organized, and I didn't say books aren't valuable, but to dismiss the sheer volume of information on the internet would be silly. I wouldn't say burn the books, and just the same I wouldn't say burn the internet.

And call me what you want, but I'm not bringing a kid into this fucked up environmental catastrophe. Seems incredibly irresponsible.

Education for the masses on when and when not to populate responsibly. Really simple. I'm done explaining common sense.

you still fail.
Where did I say to implement policy in this regards?

excuse me, I was referring to we - the consumers - who are responsible for the warming of the earth.

And you and many like you are propagating the issue at hand by arguing over this pathetic semantic and failing to recognize that we are the planet. This planet makes shit all over it. Stuff that moves around and thinks and lives and breathes. That's Earth's thing. Saturn has rings, Jupiter is fuckin huge, mars is red and crusty, Pluto (oh my god please spare me, I am aware it isnt a planet) is fuckin cold.

And earth makes shit every single day.

And it's bad ass and we can keep making shit all over the universe if we do it right. Don't fuck that up for us. Thanks.

you fail to recognize several things. I never said that only the poor shouldn't populate. This is absolutely absurd to assume. The majority of pollution is a result of those who are wealthy with fossil fuel money. If anyone needs to depopulate, it's those fuckers. (Us fuckers)
No you dont have to "ruin the economy" when you reduce population, rather it spreads the wealth of resources amongst the population due to abundance, and I CERTAINLY never said anyone has to die in order to see this through. We can become educated to understand what responsibility is required to populate with the rest of the planet and individual access to the necessary resources *to populate responsibly in mind. Knowing when to not have a kid is just as important as having enough kids to keep the population supplied. There is a tipping point in either direction and currently we have exceeded that tipping point given our current consumption rate and it's effect on the ecosystem. In other words... not a good time to have a litter of children.
One woman, one child, half the population in 50-80 years. No one is killed, consumption is halved, constituents have access to more resources, pollution is partially mitigated, Bob's your uncle.
Of course this isn't the end all solution, and it is not what we lean on as government mandate, but education in this regards is vital to curbing environmental issues with urgency in consideration.

And... I agree ingenuity will save us, and in fact I believe technology already is, for without it the ability to know and the ability to share the information are naught.
We need to know the information in order to understand what needs to be done and
We need to share the information in order to implement the solutions.
Take away ingenuity from the scenario, and no one knows a thing and we all die out of nowhere.

Technology isnt the problem here in my opinion. In my opinion the problem is an over reliance on the wrong technology for far too long, and our own sheer willingness to participate and encourage it to line "our" political and industrial pockets.

Those who are willing to risk the sanctity of humanity to line their own pockets aren't "our" people. They are their own people and they are willing to take this risk because they are already supplied to survive. They are not concerned with the future of life on Earth.

Industry has paid policy to enact this process. We are the victims of their greed, and if this process is not stopped it will not be the meek who inherit the Earth because the meek will perish first and unmercifully.

it's pretty simple... we have many billions of people and the number is growing exponentially at an accelerated and unsustainable rate.

If we all take as little as possible and then start to give back then what have we accomplished? Incredible feats of which humanity is more than capable. We are prosperous in the wrong things. Plastic. We need to be prosperous in food and water and shelter and nature and community. Not plastic. Not oil.

So we have to try. Try for my children. Your friend's and family's children. Try because life is an amazing thing and it's worth continuing.

If we all take as little as possible and then start to give back then what have we accomplished? Incredible feats of which humanity is more than capable. We are prosperous in the wrong things. Plastic. We need to be prosperous in food and water and shelter and nature and community. Not plastic. Not oil.

So we have to try. Try for my children. Your friend's and family's children. Try because life is an amazing thing and it's worth continuing.

Food, shelter, water, clothing, and maybe a smart phone. These are needs.

I am addicted too this is why the market is so successful. They have taken advantage of our dependencies. We must be stronger than our addictions to the products.

Food is different from the rest of the products. We need food so I dont expect anyone to stop eating. We can source our food as eco friendly and locally as possible and that is the best we can do for food.

What I am more concerned about is all of the extra things that we do not need. New sneakers, new speakers, new watches. We do not need all of the extras and in fact they are holding us back from moving forward. We have to stop buying mass produced wants and we have to start buying just local needs.

The thing is, the rich are likely already aware of this. I am not brilliant and have found this line of thinking. They either don't know or don't care. This problem is a multifaceted spear. I see it needing to be burned from all sides at once immediately. The parts I have identified are Consumers, Market, and Government. We all share responsibility to this system. We have tried for decades to convince the market and the government to act, but they do not. It is up to the consumers to boycott the market and force mitigation.

or knows someone who is. Speaking and extending ourselves outward with hope is the best we can do as individuals. We really need to educate the masses to this and perhaps pray.

No sir that is not who I am. I am an activist and philosopher, not an engineer. I am not asking what should be done, but what should *I do?

what should I do?

If the jobs disappear switch to farming

Do not buy things you dont need. Tell everyone.

We have to cease overconsumption. It is the only resolution. We must educate the masses.

People like to say "well it will happen regardless of our involvement" but they always say this on the pretenses of conspiracy or inconclusive data. If it's inconclusive data the smart move is to not take the risk!

I mean that is common sense across the board!
Dont make a bet you cant guarantee you will win, especially when the bet is all of life as we know it!

It's really fine either way. Whether we are causing it or not shouldn't we still take precautions as if we are causing it in the event that it could potentially mitigate the scenario rather than doing absolutely nothing? I mean I am sure you follow the risk vs reward line of thinking that I propose right? Does it make sense or not?

Look up NASA'S depictions of soil conditions in America overtime. The darker regions indicate drier soil. By 2094 most of the soil in America will be incredibly dry. As the soil dries and the rain fails to show up, the water goes away and the crops stop growing. When the crops stop growing people migrate.

I really hope this is all a big lie and science is wrong. If it is I will be happy. In my opinion we should heed the warning regardless. What if it all turns out to be true and we did nothing? We shouldn't take the risk. The smart move is to fix the environment before it potentially becomes unfixable. It is better to take the precaution than to take the risk of killing billions of humans and even more plants and animals.

But regardless.. reducing overconsumption is the only way to plateau the increasingly uneven wage gap and to ensure that companies properly mitigate resources rather than making huge stockpiles of things we dont need, advertising to our psychology as to why we need them, and selling them to us for more than they are worth.

We are addicted to stuff and in my opinion it not only ruins the ecosystem, but it is also just a misuse of resources that could turn out to be much more valuable in the future, and it destabilizes the economy because the resources are finite and the current consumption is unsustainable and inefficient.

oh I am frustrated because this is so simple yet so far fetched for humans to actually do. No one wants to give up their beanbag chairs and their piles of textiles, or their Keurig supersized mcdildo from wish dot com.

Psychology has convinced us to participate in all of this nonsense. We are addicted to buying waste. It has to change or we all die in a fire.

use your brain! I did not say starve yourself!

Select your necessities wisely to avoid pollution to the best of your ability and cease impulsive consumption of things that are not necessary at all!

This planet cannot sustain this system!

it's probably a useful idea but the internet is the library of human knowledge. I feel like it is important but perhaps less than I assume.

How and when do we demand complete overhaul of entire corporations and infrastructures such as oil production, plastic production, and other unnecessary wasteful pollutants? At what point do we restructure our lives to put these corporations out of business and reduce the market and the lifestyles that inhibit progress? Never? Are we too stupid to do it as a collective? Is it going to take more hurricanes and fires and ocean rise for people to even begin to acknowledge this concern?

People aren't convinced and aren't educated to the data, and furthermore many who might be simply do not care. People mistrust decades of research because humans are shady and greedy bastards. And as a result well... here we are.


I really hope it's just a big bunch of bullshit. I hope anyone who thinks it is gets to rub it right in my face in 40 years. But the risk vs reward is askew against your favor because you are essentially asking me to risk now what could be very terrible danger on the horizon for the sake of being correct about whether or not it is a risk. Taking the risk for the sake of being correct is far more foolish than planning for the risk in the event that it happens at all. Whether it does or not is irrelevant to the fact that many are saying that it can and will. Such the same as one would wear safety goggles in woodshop to protect the eyes. The risk of losing your vision is not worth the reward of looking cooler without safety goggles.

Well I'm not going out a punk. I'm young and Imgoing to die saying that I did everything I could to help. Even if there is a sliver of a chance for humans to come out on the other side of the fence alive I intend to extend my reach in all ways possible for the sanctity of the existence of the human species.

Because I love being alive. It's fuckin glorious. I wish to share it forward.

Google it. Seriously those are the clearest definitions and people try to constrict philosophy to individual aspects of philosophy without the willingness to acknowledge a philosophy as philosophy simply when they do not like the line of thought. A philosophy of a subject can be stupid, but does not make it any less philosophical.

Your philosophy is that you dont have a definition for philosophy.

That's one philosophy in your life that you have given here. As for the fact that it is a contradiction in and of itself is evident.

In other words: not a very good philosophy in my opinion.

Let's not assume that I am claiming to not be hypocritical here. I am not minimal. My family is not minimal. I do what you do as well and I agree that it is a difficult situation. I am also trying to consider more ways to be more minimal. I am highly considering changing jobs to a closer location for one. Buying in bulk instead of prepackaged. I mean food is tricky because they are all owned by shady corporations, but buying 24 water bottles over tap or filtration or what have you is not good. Going to the store and grabbing a soda or a frappe is not so great... pretty much anything from a convenience store is just essentially selling you trash with addictive food inside.

I also think about appliances and tools and clothes in excess.

We dont really need TVs, we have phones that are more useful. Technology should go so far as to educate and entertain on a level that is not energy demanding. We dont need microwaves or toasters or coffee pots. We can use small stoves and ovens. We dont need dishwashers, excessive sets of dinnerware, or excessive cookware. Wash minimal dishes with minimal water. We dont need piles of blankets, clothes, and we shouldn't buy more or encourage the market to make more textiles by buying them until it is absolutely necessary and then yes second hand if possible.

We should probably stop eating meat as well. Very inefficient for the ecosystem.

And we should stop buying things that dont retain value over time past simple entertainment or things that utilize resources with a limited purpose like toys or jewelry.

Even if it is fraudulent, which I highly doubt is so easily orchestrated, changing excess wasteful consumption, utilizing resources efficiently, and having self sustainability in energy effectiveness are still drastic intelligence issues that bar us from moving forward as are more prosperous and productive society rather than simply a profitable one.

We have too much extra stuff. We make things that aren't useful instead of saving the resources for things that are. Our energy is not self sustainable in the least and is a one way road with toxic waste as a result.

Addressing the concerns of climate change regardless of it's catastrophic or non catastrophic effect on society also addresses these concerns

96% of climate scientists agree that the current rate of global warming is our fault.

Not 60 40
Not 50 50
Not even 80 20

96 to 4

I would like to make note that you are all over the place, sir. Your stance and resolution to concern seems to me to be conflicting and tell me if I am reading this incorrectly, you believe:

Climate change is real
It is of less concern than given credit
We should be educating the next generation on how to resolve it
But the leading educator for the public is not an environmental scientist so she doesn't provide any useful education
But the majority of scientists are wrong because of a few who find their data inconclusive.

So you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

If your data outmatches NASA I will believe you.

prove it.

if humans evolve into robots then so be it. We aren't complaining about our evolution from monkeys. "Gah I wish I still had copious amounts of ass hair"

We can still exist as robots and just be better versions of ourselves and whichever line of evolution is meant to be will be. It's still a better alternative to roasting alive or starving out or one of the other hundred ways we could all go due to our biological needs.

so you believe NASA is lying about their data and climate change is not real or a product of human waste?

I am not necessarily saying this is inevitable, nor am I saying that it is the end of humanity. I'm just trying to think ahead in order to plan for possible outcomes based on public information. I don't see how it is a waste of effort unless the entire thing is a lie, in which case I will be thoroughly impressed with the organizational skills required to do so.

How else would you advise informing coming generations of environmental issues? Aught we sing a new ashes to ashes jingle for them?

what makes you so sure of these dates and ideas that society will still be functioning by these dates?
What makes you so sure that there wont be wildfires in the west, drought, agriculture failure and mass migration? Have you seen NASA's predictions of soil temperatures into 2100? They do not look good at all.