Oh, I wish you hadn't snipped the names of the other authors.
You missed my point.
Our species was brought about by specific climate changes. First of all, these changes happened slowly enough to dive evolution, but not so quickly that we died out. (Other species did ... perhaps because "we" wiped them out.) Second, getting specifically to "climate is suitable for *human* life," had the climate changes been different than they were, some *other* kind of intelligent life might have evolved, and you-analogue might be saying the same thing to me-analogue.
I'd estimate them at more like 50 kilos each, but it's still the same order of magnitude. I suspect that there are maybe 5x as many of us as there need to be. ("There are too many precious souls being born.")
That's an excellent illustration for the head-buriers. Things were fine in your backyard until you increased the burden beyond what it could support.
Then I suggest that you read the journals they publish their findings in instead of what other people say they say or want you to think they say. A more severe step would be to investigate exactly how they came to think they way they do: go to college for six years and see for yourself what they learn, and then decide whether they're not really all that smart.
If we listen to those who argue against the Kyoto Protocol, then we must chastise you for not doing enough. We would then make you reinstate all the old technology you had installed before. The reason for all that is that your efforts aren't a perfect solution.
-- Copyright © 2006. Reposting this article on commercial web sites is forbidden.
