My brother had his own business & employed about 65 people.
He always said:
ANT person can sign the back of the paycheck.
Only about 1 in 10,000 has the talent to sign the front of the paycheck.
This sustainable crap ultimately leads to Soylent Green.
I wonder how many dozen (hundreds?) of people this useless group represents. How many millions$ wasted on "feel good" useless studies about speculative unverifiable future events, using their useless degrees?
I wonder how a Gay African-American Lesbian Studies degree fits into the plan?
Why can't they study the probable fate of the Titanic? They might actually spend ten years and billions$ creating a computer model and maybe even get the answer right!
But I wouldn't bank on it.
They used to have an exhibit at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia where you could crank a generator and power three different loads: a small one (a flashlight bulb, I think), a medium one (a larger light bulb, maybe 10 watts) and a large one (not that large, maybe a 60-watt bulb).
It was amazing how much effort it took to light the 60-watt bulb, even for five or ten seconds. At that, most people couldn't light it "all the way" (so to speak).
Anyone with a brain couldn't fail to walk away from that exhibit without a feeling of thankfulness for the people who invented, developed, built, and maintain the electrical power system.
Of course, that was long, long ago. The Franklin Institute has now been dumbed down to such an extent that nothing more thought provoking than can be handled by a mentally retarded person is present. A crankable electric generator would, I'm sure, send the board of directors scattering in all directions. They might call out the Philly SWAT team to disarm it. They would undoubtedly evacuate the building, and maybe even set up a security barrier around the entire Ben Franklin parkway until the terrifying device was properly encased in concrete and carried off to be buried, preferably in New Jersey.
Back??? I wasn’t aware it went away. Vision 2020 Agenda 21 it’s everywhere and has bee for a very long time.
That gobbledygook den of vipers needs to be eliminated pronto.
This may be the most critical issue of all. It seems that the seeds of our own destruction are set in motion either way.
It's a fairly simple grad student exercise in differential game theory.
The identification of the "Elite" as predator to the "Commoner" prey's income is rather provocative; shows the mindset. Applied Math as Bolshevism...
But there is truth to it, as all feudal societies revolve around "Elite" (er, thugs) schemes to do just that: steal earned wealth. Typically by taxation, which is always a thinly disguised protection racket.
Which in the end is funny. Because the foreigners who wrote this rather simplistic little simulation probably wanted to vilify private investors as the Predator, when in reality it's people in government...who have accumulated far more unearned wealth then the Capitalists can dream of.
We've been here before; there is a germ of truth to it, but reality is far more complex and multi-variate. The early 1970s were full of garbage coming from Paul Ehrlich and Carl Pope about Carrying Capacity; that's where Environmentalism as Marxism really made it big.
But people like Julian Simon fought back and showed that the simulations were juvenile and missed adaptations that would make better use of existing resources and even create new ones. We have seen all of that happen in the last 40 years.
The politically militant foreigners doing this little noodle missed all that, or are merely propagandists attempting to resurrect the vampire of anti-human enviro-marxism.
In the Eighteenth century Thomas Malthus said that the food supply would never keep up with population growth for mathematical reasons. He was wrong. Probably ninety percent of starvation was caused by politics, not population. Where there is a need there will be a supply. Probably the earth could support many times the present population. Our needs would still be filled as newer and better technologies would be continuously invented. So, we’re all going to die because we’re not doing what these authors say we should? In the ‘60’s we were heading into an ice age. By 1970 there would be little or no oil left. They had all us school kids scared of that an nuclear winter. The only thing I’m afraid of now is a Democrat in office.
#1 :"dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources"- U.N. Agenda 21, eliminating electric and fossil fuel dependancy
#2 : " ..and reducing population growth." - Margaret Sanger, abortion, birth control, and warfare
I think the long-term goal of the environmentalist is to have 90% of the population living in clusters of massive high-rise apartment buildings, partially powered by solar power, and that the private home will gradually be phased out except for the government/media/entertainment/corporate/scientific elites. A city of a million would consist of about 100 of these towers with about 500-800 hundred private homes or luxury condos for the elite. The Left has always been offended by the ownership of private property by the “unworthy” middle class.
The article could have ended right there, and been functionally complete to define the eternal fallacy.
Amazing, how an otherwise excellent analysis of the problem is clouded by the current social imperative to bow to the God Of PC.
A little editing makes the issue perfectly clear.
A national research center funded through a grant to the University of Maryland, SESYNC is a resource for the scholarly community, facilitating innovative, cross-discipline research by providing a unique array of support and activities, as well as a physical collaborative space, to accelerate socio-environmental research and synthesis.
There is a substantial percentage of the population, perhaps even a supermajority, who will do as little as is possible to "get by." This is a serious problem because in order to "reduce inequality" one must take from those with more capability and give to those with less.While this is not an invalid assumption, it relies on premises that may or may not be true. Doing as little as possible to "get by" is actually a superior trait; in my world it's called "doing minimum effort for maximum gain", also known as "working smart, not working hard". I work smart all the time. Why work hard when working smart will net you as good or even better result?
There is no free lunch in this regard, and "renewable" energy sources are a crock in the main, because in most cases the end-to-end energy return poorly compares with the end-to-end energy investment.Currently. Currently. Never assume that there won't be technological breakthroughs on energy. There are a ton of people working on renewables, especially the US military in conjunction with the DOE (easy enough to figure why too).
Finally we must put a stop to the subsidizing of those who insist on breeding like rabbits.To do that requires some serious MANDATING of birth control and abortion and there is NO WAY that a good Christian is going to endorse that. So you can forget it.
I am not in the "doomer" camp, but I do recognize that we have done a terribly-poor job when it comes to longer-run planning, particularly in the energy paradigmIn ALL paradigms, buddy. And that was started back in the 1970s with the "shareholder value" thing. All short-term, all quarterlies, and no real planning for the future. Only for the now.
In the Eighteenth century Thomas Malthus said that the food supply would never keep up with population growth for mathematical reasons. He was wrongThe only reason he was wrong though is because of the British & Scottish Agricultural Revolutions and the Green Revolution of the 20th century. He couldn't forsee our technological advances.
NASA’s most important mission is to make Muslims feel good about themselves. -Charle Bolden
Now they want us all to be equally miserable living in third world standards.