This modest (but hopefully inspiring) little tract is available on Amazon as both ebook & paperback. Contains breathtaking nighttime NASA images of whole regions of the planet.
'Step back and look down.'
I've been getting a lot of hits lately from Singapore. Do any of you have comments or questions?
So let’s run a little thought experiment using our fabulous
‘laboratory of the states.’ Let’s pick a couple small states—say New Hampshire
and Vermont, cute little side-by-side New England states. Let’s say New Hampshire
decided to try to become a high-IQ state. First off, they’d give everybody IQ
tests. Then they would encourage (i.e., financially incentivize) high-IQ people
to reproduce and discourage (financially disincentivize) low-IQ people from
reproducing—not providing further welfare benefits for out-of-wedlock children,
providing free hysterectomies, abortions, vasectomies, etc. Similarly, they
would encourage high-IQ in-migration and low-IQ out-migration.
Then, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that left-wing,
Vermont went in the opposite direction. They would also give everybody IQ tests
but would use them to encourage low-IQ reproduction and discourage high-IQ
reproduction. Similarly, they would encourage low-IQ in-migration and high-IQ
out-migration. (No rational government would ever do this, of course, for
obvious reasons.)
What would these two states look like after a couple
generations? New Hampshire would be a civilized, prosperous first-world state,
well-versed in the science and technology of the modern world, with great
public schools and a low-to-nonexistent crime rate. Vermont, meantime, would have become an impoverished, corrupt,
crime-ridden third-world hellhole.
Do you doubt it?
Affirmative action is a zero-sum game that selects less qualified people over more qualified people on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. It's counterproductive and immoral and should be abolished.
United Nations aid and US foreign aid should be based on countries presenting and implementing plans for plateauing and then reducing population. Countries should identify a specific population goal based on land area, type of economy (subsistence agriculture, hunting/gathering, etc.), type of residence (house, apartment, farmstead, etc.).
The media should be covering climate change the way they covered World War II, as an ongoing crisis being covered on a daily basis. All these natural disasters should be treated like battles in a war, battles we are losing in a war we are losing.
One could say that the tide is turning when greenhouse emissions have plateaued and started going down. But even then, the consequences will be with us for decades, maybe centuries. It would be as if Europe and Japan had just continued to lie in ashes after WW II.
The media are simply not doing their job in reporting on climate change. This has been brought to my attention in recent days by two separate incidents.
First, about a thousand climate scientists around the world engaged in acts of civil disobedience in a desperate attempt to get the message out about the seriousness of climate change. This got just about zero press coverage.
Then there was the ridiculous disparity in coverage between the Will Smith/Chris Rock nonsense and the release of the IPCC Working Group 3 report on climate change mitigation. This rich piece of show-biz gossip got about 100-- or was it 1,000?-- times as much coverage as the latter. Absurd.
The media continue to deal with climate change as if it were of interest only to some minor demographic called 'environmentalists.' This has got to STOP!
