Extinction Rebellion

Post Reply New Topic

Deep Thought: I think I love you.

Excellent and well written. Thank you.

With oil being composed of mainly carbon (C) and hydrogen (H), it is referred to as a hydrocarbon (HC), and when it is refined and used as gasoline, diesel or kerosene by ignition to power combustion driven engines, generators and turbines ~ the exhaust fumes are therefore also called ‘carbon emissions’.

Of all the carbon emissions produced by combustion engines with carbon dioxide (CO2), the most biologically and ecologically toxic are: benzene (C6H6), carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde (CH2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and matter particulates (molecular soot and unpaired atoms).

Even though catalytic converters have very much reduced individual toxic gas emissions ~ they have conversely very much in the collective vehicle sense increased air, land and sea pollution with unpaired atoms that I refer to as ‘nano-scale nasties’:

The hidden danger of heavy metals in catalytic converters.

As such we went from the thick molecular scale airway-clogging and lung-blocking smog filled atmospheres ~ that were on the go up until the seventies ~ all the way down in scale to the ultra-fine atomic cell-permeating and system-and-organ blocking atmospheric hazes on the go since the seventies:

‘Nano air pollutants strike a blow to the brain’ and every other cell in the body.

So basically catalytic converters were imagined to be a wonderful ‘green’ step forwards for humanity, but were a ‘nano-particulate infesting’ step backwards session for biodiversity.

Greetings ~ yes everything went all catastrophe factor ten for a while, which took a fair bit of sorting out ~ but hey hoe.


I am dyslexic myself but reading is not a problem as my ability to speed read compensates for the misreads and rereads, which basically means I read things several times in a single read and am a bit above average on reading speed.


Well I will do each section in turn like I have with your statement about CO2 emissions and pollution.

Bless you ~ and I am so glad you enjoyed it!

Well the fourth principle of the ’XR movement is described on Wikipedia with contextual underlining by myself as follows:

‘4. We openly challenge ourselves and this toxic system, leaving our comfort zones to take action for change.’

And is described on XR website under ‘DECLARATION OF REBELLION’ with contextual underlining by myself as follows:

Our air is so toxic that the United Kingdom is breaking the law. It harms the unborn whilst causing tens of thousands to die. The breakdown of our climate has begun. There will be more wildfires, unpredictable super storms, increasing famine and untold drought as food supplies and fresh water disappear.


On page 11 of Roger Hallam’s manifesto regarding the first of 3 mentions of fossil fuel pollution as follows underlined by myself:

Earth, we have a problem to solve
Societies around the world did not allow the current ecological
collapse. Governments did. Since the 1990s, a false narrative was
promoted around the world that individuals should take
responsibility for their ‘carbon footprint’. Or that ‘it’s the
corporations’, the fossil fuel and other polluting industries that are to
blame. Yet governments are the only institutions with the power, and
the responsibility, to protect us from harm. But they haven’t used that
power.

He impressed me too when I first met him.
So much so, that I promoted him to "Deep Thought 8".
Seriously, I did.
Ask him.

Actual climate scientists laugh at the XR movement.
Well, I don't know if they actually do,
But I do know they distance themselves from what XR says.
It is unscientific.

I wasn’t trying to change your view of ‘them’ ~ just correcting where you were incorrect regarding only one death and someone missing it being as if entirely relevant, and where you were uninformed regarding pollution at least sickening millions and killing millions more people prematurely every year ~ and hence the relevance of the XR movement’s ‘road-block’ protests against that and other abuses against environmental biodiversity.

That he did, as follows:

There is no mention of ‘global extinction’ in the XR manifesto written by Roger Hallam at least ~ only the ‘global catastrophe' mentioned on page 5 in the first sentence of paragraph 3 that can be avoided to some extent by halving carbon emissions by 2030, according to the IPCC, as follows:

The United Nations has estimated that we need to reduce carbon
emissions by half within a decade to have a 50% chance of avoiding
global catastrophe.

If you are referring to that which was written by Roger Hallam though regarding human extinction in the near term on page 7 ~ paragraph 5 ~ of his manifesto; as follows:

This is the first step in transformation: accepting the truth as it is.
Climate and ecological breakdown will kill us all in the near term
unless we act as if the truth is real.

It is a reasonable enough ‘worse-case’ scenario statement when considered in relation with the duration of human evolution ~ what with the ‘long-term’ having involved about 8 million years for the previous evolutions up to the Denisovans and Neanderthals; the ‘mid-term’ involving about 300 thousand years as involving our current evolution, and the ‘short-term’ involving at very least about a hundred or so or a few hundred years if ‘we’ (the species) have not significantly altered our ways industrially and commercially by 2030, in ‘respect’ of the environment:

“The overwhelming evidence of the [2019] IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

A request for documentation of DeepThought's assertions have been provided. No one has to change his/her position, but it does look like DeepThought has responded thoroughly to the challenges. I would defend everyone's right to express his/her opinion, but if I were judging a debate, DT would win.

I am neither for or against the XR. I don't know enough about them. I do know I am concerned about the topics they raise.

I find the discussion of topics, based on thought and research, preferably to posters just posting the same things over and over again. I realize that may not be possible for many reasons, but I love it when I see it.

That is quite understandable as some people go for the ‘boon-weaver’ denial of ‘everything’s just wonderful’ state of affairs, whilst others go for the ‘doom-weaver’ acceptance of ‘everything’s just awful’ state of affairs, and everybody else goes for something in-between and others otherwise ~ in an attempt to be faithful to reality, more or less.

I am an ‘inbetweener’ myself ~ in that I am of the opinion that humans need to give up like an addiction being economically and environmentally greedy parasites, and become instead ecologically and technologically wise symbiotes.


Unwarranted no; but exaggerated yes (as doom-weaving) ~ as a balance to the decades long exaggerated assurance mongering (as boon-weaving) of the oil and other related industries:

A recent analysis of more than 100 industry documents conducted by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has revealed that the oil industry knew of the risks its business posed to the global climate decades before originally suspected.

It has also long been assumed that, in its efforts to deceive investors and the public about the negative impact its business has on the environment, Big Oil borrowed Big Tobacco’s so-called tactical “playbook.” But these documents indicate that infamous playbook appears to have actually originated within the oil industry itself.

For forty odd years the oil and other related industries were assurance mongering economic ‘dreams’ (including every treasure on earth not worth having) ~ whilst in reality was promoting an ecological crisis involving people as being and becoming unconsciously, subconsciously and preconsciously habituated into spending more money irrationally, and consuming more resources compulsively:

To maintain our current appetite for resources, we would need the equivalent of 1.7 Earths, according to Global Footprint Network, an international research organisation that makes an annual assessment of how far humankind is falling into ecological debt.

Well that is rather the point of protesting or campaigning for a cause ~ as includes at one extent ‘bandwagon’ protestors who take part more to enjoy themselves and be part of a change (at least from the everyday hum-drum of it all), and along with the others in-between are those at the other end of the extent ~ as being the ‘dedicated’ protesters who take part more to enjoy informing others and bringing about sociological change.


There are of course lesser and greater examples of exemplary conduct in any philosophical, political or religious grouping sociologically, hence there being those who set the emulatory gold standard as are heartfelt and genuine in their everyday living as environmentalists, naturists or both.


And in that young people are gaining more experience of life as is rather the point ~ they want the same to apply for other species of life that are endangered, or are becoming endangered:

The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

Ah ~ a paraphrase of Verse 27 from the 5th Chapter of the book of Daniel, in the Old Testament Bible, regarding the story of ~ ‘The Writing on the Wall.’

The narrative goes that the unbalanced and arrogant Neo-Babylonian King Belshazzar holds a great banquet during a famine, and whilst drinking wine orders that the gold and silver ceremonial goblets (as taken by his father from the first temple of the Hebrews) be brought to him and his nobles, wives and concubines ~ so that they may get further drunk from them.

Only upon drinking from the sacred goblets ~ a disembodied ghostly hand appeared and inscribed a message with it’s fingers in the plaster of the wall before the king ~ frightening him immensely, and which after many had tried only a renowned Hebrew wise-man could read it, named Daniel, who said:

25.) “This is the inscription that was written: mene, mene, tekel, parsin.
.
26.) “Here is what these words mean:
.
))))) Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
.
27.) Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
.
28.) Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

The big problem with your paraphrase is that you have taken and reversed the contextual relationship of the verse from that of the chapter ~ what with the governments of the world being more akin to the unbalanced and arrogant King Belshazzar; the 2018 IPCC report being more akin to the ‘The Writing on the Wall’ to balance things out, and the ’XR lot being more akin to Daniel ~ as they have made the global crisis headline news; ‘what with the world’s governments neither having shown respect for the spirit of life nor either the nature of it’ (just to put a religious slant / spin on it).

With all this (as underlined by myself )‘Here in Australia, we have some dumb "Extinction Rebellion" members.’, ‘Their manifesto includes blatant nonsense about global extinction.’,‘They have no credibility in my eyes.’, ‘They have engaged in unwarranted fear-mongering.’, ‘They embrace misrepresentation/lies to serve their agenda.’, ‘Some are obviously simply attention-seeking.’, ‘Some are solid gold hypocrites.’, ‘Most are young with little life experience.’ and
‘Mocking them, Well, everyone needs a hobby. ’ ~ is exactly what is described as being unacceptable written content on this forum:

While it is acceptable to attack and debate beliefs (political, religious etc) it is not acceptable to make generalised attacks on the adherents of those beliefs.

Yet you post here on the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion pages of this forum, where debate is as established as fish swimming in water, animals walking on land and birds flying in the air, what with the ‘Please read before posting’ page stating quite clearly as underlined by myself as follows:

1. PPR
This is a special forum. It is for debating and as such pretty much anything goes provided it stays within the site rules and the following guidelines. It is more or less freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if some people have obnoxious or ill-informed opinions regarding politics, religion or virtually anything else. People can debate and criticize any religion, atheism, political party, public figures etc. Just because some members may belong to a particular religion (or atheism) or political party, does not exclude it from debate.