Human behaviour has not advanced morally beyond law of the jungle survival of the fittest. This is how the ecosystem has operated for billions of years. It has always been like that and underpins the evolution of species from bacteria to animals and plants and human beings. However when humans passed a threshold of intelligence and cognitive awareness they became capable of understanding how to manipulate nature and the ecosystem to provide more food essentials and luxuries and energy for their own use. A technological revolution with control of the world within their grasp. Without a corresponding moral revolution (which is also within our grasp if we choose it) the result is eventual disaster for the human race and our ecosystem climate and beautiful world.
People need to think seriously about this and what we should do about it. Are we willing to go without atleast some of our surplus wealth and materialistic greed in order to save our future and the worlds future.?
“We must also adapt where possible, by encouraging simple behavioural changes (like avoiding outdoor daytime activity)”
“But relying on artificial cooling to cope with the growing heat would supercharge energy demand and leave many people dangerously exposed to power failures. It would also abandon the most vulnerable members of society and doesn’t help those who have to venture outside.”
I see this contradiction as a proof positive of the author’s idiocy.
I have been saying, for at least 12 years now, that taking only temperature as a measure of global warming is wrong. We need to measure heat index, which takes into account the latent heat of the extra humidity. In other words, the wet bulb temperature.
Stop deforestation. Grow more trees and reduce fossil fuels. Definitely must stop burning stuff when there are other ways of disposal
Apparently a large proportion of human beings are intrinsically wired incorrectly to be able to perceive danger when it isn’t straight in front or on top of them. We tend to unfairly call them dumb but it’s not their fault that they are just a huge proportion of human kind and have other skills that we have may be found useful in the past. Not much use now though unless we rewire them.
Human behaviour has not advanced morally beyond law of the jungle survival of the fittest. This is how the ecosystem has operated for billions of years. It has always been like that and underpins the evolution of species from bacteria to animals and plants and human beings. However when humans passed a threshold of intelligence and cognitive awareness they became capable of understanding how to manipulate nature and the ecosystem to provide more food essentials and luxuries and energy for their own use. A technological revolution with control of the world within their grasp. Without a corresponding moral revolution (which is also within our grasp if we choose it) the result is eventual disaster for the human race and our ecosystem climate and beautiful world.
People need to think seriously about this and what we should do about it. Are we willing to go without atleast some of our surplus wealth and materialistic greed in order to save our future and the worlds future.?
“We must also adapt where possible, by encouraging simple behavioural changes (like avoiding outdoor daytime activity)”
“But relying on artificial cooling to cope with the growing heat would supercharge energy demand and leave many people dangerously exposed to power failures. It would also abandon the most vulnerable members of society and doesn’t help those who have to venture outside.”
I see this contradiction as a proof positive of the author’s idiocy.
I have been saying, for at least 12 years now, that taking only temperature as a measure of global warming is wrong. We need to measure heat index, which takes into account the latent heat of the extra humidity. In other words, the wet bulb temperature.
Stop deforestation. Grow more trees and reduce fossil fuels. Definitely must stop burning stuff when there are other ways of disposal
Planet of the Humans ! Show us a solution that is not focused on harvesting grants and research dollars.
???????
Apparently a large proportion of human beings are intrinsically wired incorrectly to be able to perceive danger when it isn’t straight in front or on top of them. We tend to unfairly call them dumb but it’s not their fault that they are just a huge proportion of human kind and have other skills that we have may be found useful in the past. Not much use now though unless we rewire them.
The sky is not falling chicken little!
How many failed predictions do we have to endure before we can say enough?
I stopped reading at when I saw weather instead of whether
It’s supposed to be Weather NOT Whether.
“Range of Weather humans can encounter on earth.”