Watch - interview with James Lovelock (age 101) on the Coronavirus

[frauenfelder]

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/08/04/watch-interview-with-james-l.html

…

[Brian_Shock]

Why on earth would I want to listen to anything this genocidal old sociopath says?

His main messages in the recent past have been:

1. The climate is in a hell of a lot worse shape than anyone thinks and may suddenly become worse still. This will result in a precipitous die-back or even extinction of Homo sapiens.

2. The planet would be better off if a few billion humans were to suddenly die.

It’s not hard to imagine that Lovelock is looking forward to the coming, inevitable Ebola pandemic. (That’s right, kids – COVID-19 was just the teaser.)

What is it with people becoming such bastards when they get older? They’re going to die soon, so they want everyone else to join them?

[KingGhidorah]

Really? I thought he had changed his tune a lot from when he was saying Gaia doesn’t care if humans go extinct. He was concerned about global warming and though we should do whatever it takes to stop it.

I doubt he said the planet would be better off without humans, but rather the other life forms on the planet would be, and that seems pretty undeniable.

And whatever you “imagine” him to look forward to, it doesn’t mean he believes that. Make up whatever you want to hate him more, I guess.

But save the “genocidal” tag for someone who is actually causing people to die, like Trump.

[Chuckles]

To be clear, when anyone says, “humans are really messing up the planet,” what they mean is, “humans are messing up the planet in a way that will end up killing off a lot of humans.”

The planet doesn’t have a mind, so it doesn’t “care” about anything. And humans don’t have a way to actually destroy the planet. But humans can sure do things to exterminate a bunch of species.

[Sludge]

@frauenfelder

Lovelock discusses the Coronavirus, and how the human race is an “opportunity for the virus. If you go on building at the population, it’s almost inevitable that something is going to say, geez, there’s a lot of stuff to eat there. Let’s go get it.”

Well, that needs a pin.

[VeronicaConnor]

@generic_name

it’s easier to discuss floating cities or mining the ocean floor than to address the uncomfortable proposition of limiting reproduction by law.

That’s a false dichotomy, though. The data shows that when quality of life rises to a certain level, births naturally drop below replacement level. Healthy, happy, well-off people in rich countries have fewer children- often one or none. This is why many European countries are starting to offer retrograde and ancestral citizenships- they are worried about losing their tax base as the population shrinks.

The way to limit population is to focus on giving everyone a better life in as carbon-neutral a way as possible.

[the_borderer]

@generic_name

strangely, it’s easier to discuss floating cities or mining the ocean floor than to address the uncomfortable proposition of limiting reproduction by law.

Some of us think there are more options available than unrestrained capitalism or ecofascism though.

[Brainspore]

@generic_name

it’s easier to discuss floating cities or mining the ocean floor than to address the uncomfortable proposition of limiting reproduction by law.

The human birth rate has been slowing for generations. The populations of most wealthy countries—including the United States—are either dropping already or would be if it weren’t for immigration. Most current projections show the global population leveling off by the middle of this century even without any laws limiting reproduction.

So let’s get real here. When we talk about fixing the planet by telling people how many children they can have, what we’re really doing is saying “those of us who live in rich countries don’t want to take responsibility for our disproportionately high consumption of the Earth’s resources so instead we’re going to pretend that poor countries with high birth rates are causing all the environmental problems.”

[Otherbrother]

@VeronicaConnor

@generic_name

it’s easier to discuss floating cities or mining the ocean floor than to address the uncomfortable proposition of limiting reproduction by law.

That’s a false dichotomy, though. The data shows that when quality of life rises to a certain level, births naturally drop below replacement level. Healthy, happy, well-off people in rich countries have fewer children- often one or none. This is why many European countries are starting to offer retrograde and ancestral citizenships- they are worried about losing their tax base as the population shrinks.

The way to limit population is to focus on giving everyone a better life in as carbon-neutral a way as possible.

Specifically, providing educations for girls and young women so that they have more options in life has long been shown to be far more effective in reducing birthrate than more “direct” measures like providing free birth control (but hey, why not both?) and is obviously a benefit to society in other ways as well. Unfortunately recent events are providing a clear demonstration of what happens when those education opportunities are suddenly taken away.

As Kenya Keeps Schools Shut, Teen Pregnancies Are Rising