It probably is because normalcattle ruin everything and there are too many of them in this world.

>>1033
This.

What about deforestation?
What about creeping disaster?

Might the consequences from deforestation,
mass species extinctions, or hydrocarbons emitted over sea accumulate
slowly after nearly irreversible change?

Great video.

We need more truth.

Still, the post-modernists have a point.
Lies do generate the fun to create change.

"What if it all turns out a hoax and
we improved the world for no reason?"

We still need to talk about
if non-anthropogenic climate change
might have doomsday consequences?

The video essayist,
gives evidence against anthropogenic'ism
then mocks the question of doomsday
without any evidence about that?

"people" won't stop creating more "people". They create the 100-years-of-suffering.
What would be best would be for some government to create weapons that can destroy the planet itself, so that no life can ever come into existence again. Although you'd have to do that without committing the ultimate evil/sin of creating another life. So I'd settle for just nuking the planet to make it uninhabitable. It would just be self-defense. If you see a fire spreading, then you should put it out. If the planet was nuked, then you'd be giving a gift to those on it - freedom from this prison - which is difficult to accomplish by yourself.

I wish.

Sentience is so damn persistent.