Climate Change Solution: No Humans

Chrystal-J said:

(From article):
February 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On January 23, 2020, Bloomsbury Academic published a call to action for all those who care about “climate change.” The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene by Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Angelia Ruskin University, cuts to the chase and advocates for the ultimate solution to global warming: The end of the human race. For MacCormack, “Extinction Rebellion” has a whole different meaning.

MacCormack, who admits to being an “occultist magician,” is not the sort of weak-kneed climate activist who believes that we should save the planet for our children.

In fact, she doesn’t think there should be any children.

Link: Feminist prof who practices occult calls for human extinction to save planet

Click to expand...

Annnd.....?

Patricia MacCormack is an anti-natalist. Anti-natalist ideas like this have been kicking around since before Thomas Malthus formalised them in his writings in the late 1790s.

There's also nothing new about anti-natalism driven specifically by anthropogenic climate change.

Overt calls for this sort of action have been around for decades, from all corners of the world. The origins of the movement certainly existed in the late 1960s and early 1970s with wider environmentally driven anti-natalism. It seems to have crystalised around organisations like Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, Zero Population Growth and the Optimum Population Trust in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

MacCormack is treading a well worn groove here. There are innumerable variations of her argument, she's just towards the fringe of one set.

Shouldn't we all just go to mars or something? I mean I agree we are bad humans who ruining the environment, but death for humanity is just too merciful of a punishment.. we should all suffer on the wasteland of mars and watch from afar all the animals finally being able to enjoy earth in peace without us.

MehGuy said:

Shouldn't we all just go to mars or something? I mean I agree we are bad humans who ruining the environment, but death for humanity is just too merciful of a punishment.. we should all suffer on the wasteland of mars and watch from afar all the animals finally being able to enjoy earth in peace without us.

Click to expand...

Beware, cockroaches have The Bomb!

Chrystal-J said:

Wonder if she would feel the same way about animals.

Click to expand...

Just wondering,
the rapture theme, some will be taken some will be left.

Any mention of animals there.

MehGuy said:

Shouldn't we all just go to mars or something? I mean I agree we are bad humans who ruining the environment, but death for humanity is just too merciful of a punishment.. we should all suffer on the wasteland of mars and watch from afar all the animals finally being able to enjoy earth in peace without us.

Click to expand...

Dunno, Noah built a boat, and everyone laughed.

Robban said:

Dunno, Noah built a boat, and everyone laughed.

Click to expand...

No he didn't and the evidence proves my point.

Lazarus Long said:

No he didn't and the evidence proves my point.

Click to expand...

tell more you have the floor.

Chrystal-J said:

(From article):
February 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – On January 23, 2020, Bloomsbury Academic published a call to action for all those who care about “climate change.” The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene by Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Angelia Ruskin University, cuts to the chase and advocates for the ultimate solution to global warming: The end of the human race. For MacCormack, “Extinction Rebellion” has a whole different meaning.

MacCormack, who admits to being an “occultist magician,” is not the sort of weak-kneed climate activist who believes that we should save the planet for our children.

In fact, she doesn’t think there should be any children.

Link: Feminist prof who practices occult calls for human extinction to save planet

Click to expand...

Curious... whats the point of presenting this^^^?

Chrystal-J said:

Guess you could get different answers depending where you go. But, I've found consistent results for the increase of ice for the south pole.

Click to expand...

Read widely without screening to just support some preferred idea, so read widely from a quality site that reports all research.

Earth Sciences News - Earth Science News, Space Earth Science, Space News, Science

For instance, don't ignore the research I just posted to you in post #16, but also dont be satisfied with only 5 or 10 unfiltered reports. Just get more.

@Gracia Singh

Chrystal-J said:

... Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Angelia Ruskin University, cuts to the chase and advocates for the ultimate solution to global warming: The end of the human race.

Click to expand...

Is she going to lead by personal example?

Darkhorse said:

What's the difference between humans becoming extinct due to "climate change" and humans becoming extinct to "save the planet"? Either way, we're extinct.

Of course, we could leave earth for the whales and butterflies to enjoy...

Click to expand...

But the cows will still be farting so I guess that won't work. We have to off them too. I'll go tell my butcher to get right on that. I want to do my part for the climate.

Halbhh said:

Read widely without screening to just support some preferred idea, so read widely from a quality site that reports all research.

Earth Sciences News - Earth Science News, Space Earth Science, Space News, Science

For instance, don't ignore the research I just posted to you in post #16, but also dont be satisfied with only 5 or 10 unfiltered reports. Just get more.

@Gracia Singh

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I remember years and years of global warming science, charts, data, figures, equations and predictions in the 80's and 90's put forth by professionals, claiming that by the year 2000, Manhattan would be under water.

I have learned not to innately trust the data, charts, predictions, forecasts, and prophecis made by scientists about the weather, climate, and how it will effect us. Data can be manipulated, or even falsified. We know that now. Or, we can just be wrong.

Gracia Singh said:

Respectfully, I remember years and years of global warming science, charts, data, figures, equations and predictions in the 80's and 90's put forth by professionals, claiming that by the year 2000, Manhattan would be under water.

I have learned not to innately trust the data, charts, predictions, forecasts, and prophecis made by scientists about the weather, climate, and how it will effect us. Data can be manipulated, or even falsified. We know that now. Or, we can just be wrong.

Click to expand...

It is easy to be wrong when one is so invested in one's ideas that one ignores the evidence they might not be perfectly correct. It also helps one to ignore inconvenient things like your previous predictions being completely wrong to have a financial investment in those ideas and a reputational investment in them. Stubbornness and zealousness are also useful in that regard. One doesn't need but one of those things to remain convinced in the face of contradictory results.

Gracia Singh said:

put forth by professionals, claiming that by the year 2000, Manhattan would be under water.

Click to expand...

See this brief video here (1 minute) look back at the major models from the 1970s, 80s, 90s (and play the short video also to see the model's predictions vs what actually happened) --
1 minute video near top of article:
Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief

In 1 minute you can see mainstream models from the 70s, 80s, 90s compared to what actually did happen.

By 1990 I had been reading and continued to read Science News and Scientific American in a very regular (well, almost compulsive I admit) way, and also went to local libraries in times when I did not have subscriptions to those magazines, where I would catch up and also read other science news type magazines in addition.

Also, climate was one of the areas that was interesting to me.

So, I read all the articles I could find. That means hundreds.

Hearing me?

Every week, I'd read a dozen or more longer articles often about quite a range of science things, and usually 40-70 briefer news about research.

I did not hear this particular speculative prediction that Manhattan would be underwater by 2000.

Did not. (but I read comprehensively the articles about climate back then, extensive, looking at all of them.)

And I did not hear such a claim in any article, and don't remember such a radical claim in any brief item I read.

I have an odd ability to remember things I read well, and a claim like that would stand out and stick easily in memory.

So....therefore seems you have here probably some individual's speculation (not the mainstream view) picked out and blown up artificially and misrepresented to be the predominate mainstream view.

It was not a predominate view, that much is very clear.

Therefore, you yourself, Gracia, should distrust a source that led you to believe that such a speculation about Manhattan underwater by 2000 was somehow the mainstream predominate view. It was anything but predominate if I didn't encounter it out of hundreds of reports.

Chrystal-J said:

Guess you could get different answers depending where you go. But, I've found consistent results for the increase of ice for the south pole.

Click to expand...

True. And, at least in general, the climate change deniers are much more often guilty of going to dubious sources.

Gracia Singh said:

Respectfully, I remember years and years of global warming science, charts, data, figures, equations and predictions in the 80's and 90's put forth by professionals, claiming that by the year 2000, Manhattan would be under water.

Click to expand...

I think you're mistaken.

Data can be manipulated, or even falsified. Or, we can just be wrong.

Click to expand...

Same with memories.

essentialsaltes said:

I think you're mistaken.



Same with memories.

Click to expand...

I remember my childhood. I remember the alarmist global-warming videos and science specials shown on TV continually when I was growing up. I remember sheets of data being handed out to us in third grade, detailing how global warming and the hole in the ozone layer would cause sea levels to rise to such an extent that by 2000-2020 (the numbers got later every year), Manahattan would be under water.

I remember images like this being shown to us often;



This was twenty five years ago. I remember all this, Saltes.

In second and third grade it was 2000.

By fourth grade they'd ooched it up to 2010.

By fifth grade, they'd ooched it up to anywhere from 2020-2050.

By the very late 90's, it became clear that something was off.

By the 2000's, the term "global warming" was being quietly phased out.

Now, we have "climate change". And the culprit is definitely carbon and the solution is definitely for us humans to do less and travel less and reproduce less frequently, and we definitely only have a decade left at best. Good grief.

Thunberg says only 'eight years left' to avert 1.5°C warming