Eco-warrior goofballs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER

21st November 2007

Daily Mail

Heh. The quips are biting at my tongue, but I shall refrain.

From the article:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

. . .

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

I have no problem with the personal choice these people made, but I do have a problem with the following belief system (including that boneheaded idea about having children would "pollute the planet"):

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision [to pursue sterilisation after her abortion] with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

. . .

Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

"In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.

"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

We Objectivists at least can take comfort in the fact that Ayn Rand did not leave a devastating carbon footprint behind in the form of a planet-polluting brat. She did her fair share for saving Mother Earth.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Forget about mankind destroying the planet so we should stop reproducing. How about upping the stakes?

Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'

By Roger Highfield

21/11/2007

Telegraph

From the article:

Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang.

But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.

They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with boggling mind experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpetation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.)

New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.

For the eco-warrior goofballs, no nookie is good unless you sterilize yourself. Now some scientists say if you look, you destroy the universe. Tonight our sterile soldiers shall sleep the sleep of the righteous.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

This is really awful.

[BaalChatzaf]

For the eco-warrior goofballs, no nookie is good unless you sterilize yourself. Now some scientists say if you look, you destroy the universe. Tonight our sterile soldiers shall sleep the sleep of the righteous.

Michael

Amazing! There are two kinds of observation: passive and active. Passive observation means collecting photons and other sub atomic particles being emitted from hot or active bodies. This type of observation does not alter the emitters. The emitters are altering themselves. Active observation: the means scattering particles off of a body. The particles can be photons (electro magnetic energy) or other particles. The scattered particles are measured and information is inferred about the body which did the scattering. There are changes in momentum and energy that result from the scattering. Almost everything we see is by light scattered (reflected) off of bodies. The light originates from radiating bodies. The sun is going to shine whether we look at it or light from it reflected off other bodies. This notion that somehow we are degrading the cosmos by observing it is Uttermost Balderdash. Another manifestation of man-hatred from the Greenies. They could do us all a service if they would commit suicide. The won't have to worry about the cosmos anymore and we won't have to listen to their bitching and whining.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

This notion that somehow we are degrading the cosmos by observing it is Uttermost Balderdash.

Indeed. Those crackpots should read a book about decoherence. The notion that you can kill Schrödingers cat merely by looking at it has itself been dead for many decades now. The beast is already dead (or alive, as the case may be) before any information reaches a consciousness. Oh, I see it comes from the New Sensationalist, that explains it of course.

[Alfonso Jones]

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER

21st November 2007

Daily Mail

Heh. The quips are biting at my tongue, but I shall refrain.

From the article:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

. . .

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

I have no problem with the personal choice these people made, but I do have a problem with the following belief system (including that boneheaded idea about having children would "pollute the planet"):

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision [to pursue sterilisation after her abortion] with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

. . .

Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

"In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.

"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

We Objectivists at least can take comfort in the fact that Ayn Rand did not leave a devastating carbon footprint behind in the form of a planet-polluting brat. She did her fair share for saving Mother Earth.

Michael

Michael -

We can take even greater comfort in the fact that this couple is not going to reproduce!

Alfonso