5 ms·
> Ah, it's purely political. I think this is how the human race will die: a bunch of rich assholes grabbing what ever they can at the expense of the rest of hu
by Ensorceled 4y ago
> Ah, it's purely political.
I think this is how the human race will die: a bunch of rich assholes grabbing what ever they can at the expense of the rest of humanity as a bunch of people try to stop it, meanwhile the remaining bulk of humanity is on the sidelines saying shit like "Ah, it's purely political"
- ravenstine 4y agoIf it isn't purely political, surely you would have something to say about it specifically rather than replying with snark. Replying with snark is the epitomy sitting on the sidelines.
- Ensorceled 4y agoNah, "Ah, it's purely political." is about as snarky as you can get. We are both being snarky here so drop the holier than thou.
- ravenstine 4y agoI said it's purely political because it is. What about "Transitioning to a new epoch might also coax policymakers to take into account the impact of humans on the environment during decision-making" sounds scientific to you? The motivation is to persuade based on opinion, which is not science. Geological evidence (in the loosest of terms) of a single species makes a new epoch not. One of the paleontologists quoted in the article describes it perfectly: > “There is no geologic record of tomorrow,” she says. That's irrefutable. The very fact that this is being pushed by a group called the "Anthropocene Working Group" is reason enough to be skeptical of the very concept they are pushing. Their agenda is not based on science, but theology. > “We were starting from scratch,” says Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester who formerly chaired the AWG and remains a voting member. “We had a vague idea about what it might be, [but] we didn’t know what kind of hard evidence would go into it.” Again, not science. In fact, that's the antithesis.