A presumably satirical article to rile environmentalists raises some interesting pointers about how environmentalists want it all, but are basically deluded. I got bored of reading it, but I thing the crux of the argument is that people should take precedence over the environment and if we need to build billions of houses so be it and if we need to use GM technology to feed everyone, crack on with it.

What I think the article doesn’t address is that there aren’t enough resources to last out already so adding an expediential amount of people to the already over inflated population isn’t really the best way to go.

Technology will solve a lot of problems, but ultimately believing that nuclear energy offers a short to solution to anything is silly and saying that animals are better off with humans around because we maybe able to blast meteorites out of the sky and save the planet is really quite inexplicable when we think about all the species that have been driven to extinction by the human race and the impact we have on the planet right now.

Personally right now I believe the future is pretty bleak, but it doesn’t matter because hedonistic tendencies to live now, pay later will ultimately prove to be our undoing. Ultimately if you drive your car with the revs in the red all the time, don’t get it serviced regularly and generally treat it with disrespect the engine will blow up and you’ll need to get it fixed. Unfortunately when the earth is in need of repair, there won’t be a mechanic around with the right parts to be able to fix it and they’ll need to order them from the manufacturer and we could be in for a long wait.

I’ve been trying to decipher a puzzle that was posed by numerous websites stating that burning logs on a wood burning stove is actually good for the environment, because it is carbon neutral. This is widely acknowledged across the Web, but something about it seemed wrong to me. Further investigation found a site which pretty much dismissed that statement as being wrong. This led me to the conclusion that basically burning ‘deadwood’ would be a pretty environmentally sound activity, but if we all did it there wouldn’t be enough trees to go around. Simply put, nothing is environmentally sound because there are too many people on the planet. Instead of addressing climate change, and any other eco issue that is out there, I think we’re skirting around the real issue, which is we need to look at ways of reducing population growth because no matter how eco-friendly we all become there are just too many of us for the world to support. Up until we do this, at best we’re just treading water.

Think about a sponge, you know, one of those creatures yanked out of the sea so you can wash yourself with, forget flannels, sponges are the way to go… anyway, think of a ‘sponge’ and if you are able, imaging how it can soak up water, and then some. It soaks up a load of water and then it’s full and can’t hold any more water. Then what happens? Water spills everywhere and there’s a mess to clean up.

The world is like a sponge, we pour a load of stuff into it and it’s filling up faster than we can squeeze it out again. This is a simple analogy for stupid people who believe that the issue of ‘climate change’ is make believe, made up like elves.

Whilst we busily filling the world up with bad stuff, (lets keep it simple), we’re also filling up the world with people. From what I’ve read- too many people. I could quote sources, but you can type ‘over population’ or ‘population growth’ into a search engine and find it for yourself. I’m not a journalist, or anything else, so I don’t feel I need to back up my opinion with any solid facts whatsoever, because I know the facts are there.

Let us recap:

The world is like a sponge and it is being filled up to saturation point. This is called ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’ or ‘make believe’ depending how you see things.

The world is full of people and there are going to be a whole bunch more of them by the year 2050.

The reason this is spelled out simply is because there is a whole bunch of people out there who do not believe these ‘facts’ are true.

Anyway, although I am passionately interested in the environment and social issues, any of this stuff I’m banging on about, frankly doesn’t matter for me because by 2050 I’ll be more than likely dead. I’m not having children, I have no brothers or sisters to worry about, I don’t really have many ties at all, apart from my wife who will be as aged as me by then, so really saving the world provides me with no actual benefit at all, and in millions of years time the world will be consumed by the sun anyhow, so maybe none of us should care less…

With those thoughts in mind, all those parents out there, make sure you all buy a Chelsea Tractor, show your kids what they look like while the is still enough oil to fuel them… say to them, look (insert name), this is what helped kill our planet, so when you’re choking to death from fumes and climate change, in middle age, you can blame good old dad for his devotion to pollutant vehicles and excess consumerism.