Quoted in "Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?" at NPR.
ADDED: I think Nancy Nolan is being a drama queen. If anybody really cares about carbon emissions, stop your crying and be hard-headed about what emits carbon. It's not the person per se, but what the person does. Back in 2010, I made a list of changes you could make to your behavior. No air conditioning isn't on the list, because that is already a given. If you haven't done that yet, Nancy and the Weepers, you are crying crocodile tears. So get up and switch that off. Forever. And now, read my list:
1. Your weight should be at the low end of normal, indicating that you are not overconsuming the products of agriculture.
2. You should not engage in vigorous physical exercise, as this will increase your caloric requirements. You may do simple weight-lifting or calisthenics to keep in shape. Check how many calories per hour are burned and choose a form of exercise that burns as few calories as possible.
3. Free time should be spent sitting or lying still without using electricity. Don't run the television or music playing device. Reading, done by sunlight is the best way to pass free time. After dark, why not have a pleasant conversation with friends or family? Word games or board games should replace sports or video games.
4. Get up at sunrise. Don't waste the natural light. Try never to turn on the electric lights in your house or workplace. Put compact fluorescent bulbs in all your light fixtures. The glow is so ugly that it will reduce the temptation to turn them on.
5. Restrict your use of transportation. Do not assume that walking or biking is less productive of carbon emissions than using a highly efficient small car. Do not go anywhere you don't have to go. When there is no food in the house to make dinner, instead of hopping in the car to go to the grocery store or a restaurant, take it as a cue to fast. As noted above, your weight should be at the low end of normal, and opportunities to reach or stay there should be greeted with a happy spirit.
6. If you have free time, such as a vacation from work, spend it in your home town. Read library books, redo old jigsaw puzzles, meditate, tell stories to your children — the list of activities is endless. Just thinking up more items to put on that list is an activity that could be on the list. Really embrace this new way of life. A deep satisfaction and mental peace can be achieved knowing that you are saving the earth.
Posts
218 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 218 of 218MikeR said ..."But then, what they are (supposed to be) trying to do isn't easy; how do you present a fair cross-section of what the field believes? The usual way in science is that you don't. You just wait till things settle out, however long that takes."
That's exactly right. I have no doubt that 100 years from now the science will be settled. Science does work if you give it time.
Here that isn't a good option, as "the world is waiting"..."
I have a problem with this. So what if "We can't wait!"? Tough. The science WILL take as long as it takes, regardless of our needs. In the mean time we're supposed to spend trillions even though it's too late!. Screw that.
Without children, who would we have to take care of as we get old?
'So what if "We can't wait!"? Tough. The science WILL take as long as it takes'
Could be that's the right decision. But that isn't obvious. Science is one thing and deciding what to do about it is another. Lots of times we need to take action even though we don't know all the facts. Whether that's the case this time is something to discuss. This is what Operations Research is all about, and it isn't easy.
"I have a problem with this." Well, so do I. But that doesn't answer the question.
"Lots of times we need to take action even though we don't know all the facts. Whether that's the case this time is something to discuss."
Agreed, but this time the discussion seems pretty simple. What actions are we called upon to make? To actually reduce warming, according to their models, requires societal upheaval. Extraordinary claims on society's resources require extraordinary evidence. They know this; that's why they claim "the science is settled". But it's not.
The nineteenth amendment.... what a total disaster.
You know, when you complain about the manner in which these same types run the world economies, with their risky bets and non-falsifiable ideas, they'll come back with the lame quip: "In the long run we're all dead." Words to this effect were uttered or written by some long defunct economist, to which our betters are seemingly today enthralled. The sentiment seems actually apropos here.
Did you see the professor's house for 3 people! Suburbans cul de sac sprawl!
The nerve!
"The nineteenth amendment.... what a total disaster." The gross disregard for the rights of others started earlier. That seems to have accelerated the process considerably, though. I was weirdly heartened to take away while reading Bastiat's "The Law" recently, that the enterprise was likely doomed from the get go. It was doomed due to two aspects: slavery, and protection. The former was a disregard (and plunder under law) of rights and the latter was a disregard (and plunder under law) of property. So, having now discovered that it was dead before I noticed, I somehow feel less troubled, at observing plunder all around, every day. Still don't like being on the receiving end and have no interest in giving it or voting for others to do it on my behalf. Took long enough, but that "public" school indoctrination was well and thorough and left me terribly ignorant.
Didn't Laurie David once suggest we should all just use one square of toilet paper? Or was it her friend Sheryl Crow? And whatever happened to them, anyway?
Sheryl Crow. I'd assume she meant for women but you can't say that because it implies that women pee.
I love that they always want SOMEBODY ELSE to sacrifice.
They never sacrifice themselves.
They want ME to fly less...while they still fly everywhere.
Hell, look at California. The wealthy elite cut off the water projects in the 1960's and 70's before completion of the entire thing --- but THEIR part of the project was done. So, they felt little problem fucking over the farmers because San Fran was already taken care of, as was LA. They had THEIR water (and certainly don't want to undo the water projects that enable their existence). So central and Eastern CA are screwed because the rich folks who run the state HAVE their water and have no problems "protecting the environment" to screw the proles over.
Why nobody has advocated redirecting the water projects that take care of SF and send them to the farms is beyond me. It'd be a fun debacle to watch.
It makes more sense to start with the IPCC reports than with your favorite blog.
Given the UN's history on everything they've ever done, I dispute that.
2) I will begin changing my life style when the De Caprios and Gores of the world do.
Reynolds's "I will treat it like a crisis when the ones calling it a crisis treat it like one" is powerful.
Less than 60 in Chernobyl, all first responders rushing into the fire. Even after the the one reactor melted down catastrophically, 2 of the others continued in operation for another 10 or so years and the 4th continued in construction. All within spitting distance of the first.
Chernobyl was also a very poorly designed plant and they ran a test when they knew that they shouldn't have been doing so (problems popped up really quickly and they didn't stop the tests immediately, as they should have). Those 60 or so dead, honestly, saved millions from a catastrophe.
TMI, as mentioned, was as close to nothing as humanly possible.
And Fukushima was the tragic combo of an earthquake AND tsunami back-to-back. So, yeah, the old plants were really quite safe. The one really bad one was a horrible design for a plant in the first place being asked to do things it really should not have been asked to do.
I'm willing to do what I can to reduce my carbon footprint,......................
Not me!
Well, the future will belong to those who show up for it.
Apparently neither descendants of Shakers or of Global Warming extremists are invited.
Shall we mourn for their absence?
It seems pretty inappropriate to me that that professor is attempting to indoctrinate and lecture the students as to their future life choices. Is that his job?
Happy to report that I typed that on my phone while nursing my fifth child, who will along with her siblings be raised to ignore pearl clutches and hand flappers.
I do recommend the author not have children, and further recommend a post-birth self abortion. I, however will stick around with my children and future grandchildren because what with "climate change" and all the sub-glacial domed communities of the future will be magnificent.
CWJ. I'm so sorry. It's not a trivial thing to worry about.
CWJ,
I wish you the best, although I have little helpful advice to offer.
I have noticed that our church community is close-knit and sensitive to the needs of the elderly, and perhaps that is a solution. We are Catholics, in a pretty traditional Catholic church.
I have noticed some other Catholic parishes that made an effort to look out for the elderly in general and their members specifically, with a close attention to the dignity of the old and dying. However I have seen other Catholic parishes that are less personal and more stand-offish.
Perhaps try to find a church community -- probably a traditionalist, tightly-knit one, and make it part of your family? Or perhaps a volunteer society?
I know one woman in our neighborhood who was very involved volunteering with the local hospital, and when she went into the nursing home, she was surrounded by friends, as well as family.
If the environmentalists stop having children, then pretty soon, there won't be environmentalists.
Post a Comment