WDSmart

In the US, I would wear a size XL or maybe 2XL. Here in Thailand, I have to wear 7XL!

I hope this results in a regime change...in Israel and the USA.

Who's surprised at this? ☹️

Who's surprised at this? ☹️

As I said earlier, climate change is only one factor in the destruction of the Earth's biosphere. And, yes, climate change has always occurred, but our use of technology, hubris, and overpopulation is just exacerbating that and speeding it up. The ocean filling up with plastic, land being filled up with non-degradable waste, and forests being cut down to build cities had not occurred prior to the appearance of humans. Wake up! Yes, every generation of humans has had its "end of the world" doom mongers, and, yes, we have always been on the precipice. We are today because we have invented technology to sanitize water (because we dump our waste into it), heal infections (giving us a longer life span, which contributes to overpopulation), and farm crops (using machinery, fertilizers, and insect repellants, all of which pollute). And, so on... 😞

Yes, yes, and all that technology, including e-phones, pollutes. We have not "peaked" in creating energy-HARVESTING technologies (not energy-creating technologies), and all our technologies pollute. They generate more pollution than usable energy. Yes, climate change is a natural thing, but that doesn't mean we, as humans, are not exacerbating or speeding up that natural process with our technology. In my book, I say that until we learn to live on this planet both socially and environmentally compatible with it, we have no business even trying to go to another planet. To do so should not be called "colonizing"; it should be called "metastasizing." Yes, I agree with you that there has not been any species of life on this planet (that we know of) that has the intelligence we (humans) do. It is this very intelligence you mention above that is destroying our planet. In my book I define "technology" as a "physical instantiation of our intellect." That is the main cause, along with hubris and overpopulation, all of which are related. My attitude will not prevent us from creating new technology that will "save" us from the continuing destruction of the Earth's biosphere (not just climate change, that is only a part of it). That destruction is already a done deal. We're "over the cliff" of that now. There is no turning back, only slowing down. And, this attitude is a truthful one, not a negative one. For a better explanation of that, read "The Starfish Story" by P. Straube, which I mentioned above. I'm sure you can find it by searching online.

I don't support Iran in this conflict, but I don't support Israel either. And I don't support the US's military actions today. I would support efforts by Iran, Israel, the USA, and everyone else to first lessen and ultimately remove the fears everyone has that make countries believe they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. That is not helped by bombing each other.

The emphasis of my book is not "the end of the world is nigh." The emphasis is "quit believing we will be saved by some super-technology that will give us free and clean energy." Everyone is my target because it will take everyone to properly understand and address this.

Wake up! It is NOW! My book features a detailed examination of solar power technology and shows how the result is more pollution (mostly heat, but there are a lot of others) than usable power (electricity). My book does not suggest that we should stop producing more energy-efficient technologies that would reduce pollution and prolong life on this planet. In fact, I end my book addressing this issue by quoting "The Starfish Story" by P. Straube. I won't quote that here, but you can look up the very short story online if you're interested.

CO2 is not the only pollutant. From what I've read, it is the most important pollutant regarding Climate Change, but it's certainly not the only pollutant as far as the destruction of the entire biosphere is concerned. I'd say the most destructive pollutant in that respect is heat, which is a byproduct of all technology, especially "energy" technologies.

Yes, all technology and the products of technology pollute. The book is not thick. It's only 75 pages, and that includes the multiple indexes (or indices.

Most people in China and India can't read English, so, yes, they don't care about my "silly" book. However, IMO, the people who are doing the most harm to the environment do read English and should care about my book, but, unfortunately, extending your comment above, I believe most of them don't care about my book, either, and do think it is "silly" to worry about things like destroying the Earth's biosphere. They think they're so smart that soon they'll invent some new, whiz-bang technology that will provide them with unlimited non-polluting power. They already have names for that, such as "green" and "renewable." There will never be a technology that produces "green" or "renewable" power. That's just a dream of theirs that makes them feel comfortable while they are destroying life and living conditions on this planet.

You've never sold a single copy of your book ? Impressive. I've sold many copies of my book, both print and e-books, on the online publisher's bookstore site, but I've also given out many more e-books than that online myself for free. I just checked the site, and the number of free books downloaded is now 773. I also give out the print book to people I meet now and then. I've never sold a print book myself.

If you truly believe that last sentence then you can do the right thing by reducing the burden on earth by one. By writing and publishing my book, I believe I have done "the right thing," and doing that is far more valuable than my death, which will eventually happen.

I agree with your sentences 1 and 2 above. As far as number 3 goes, I'm not "pumping" my book for my financial benefit. I give it away for free online. I'm just referencing it to show that I have done a lot of research on this subject and have made my conclusions public for all to see.

I hope his ratings continue to fall and that the 2026 midterms will give the Democrats at least a modicum of control over his action😡s.

A very thorough analysis and criticism of Goldberg by three White taking heads... 😡

Yes, it was reported this morning that the US has bombed Iran. I said several days ago that the chances of that under Trump were 100%. He'll do anything to make himself feel powerful. 😡

So you want to limit child births? Yes, in my book, I propose a one-woman, one-child policy. But even if persistently implemented, it would take about 360 years to reduce the human population to about 10% of what it is now. I think such a population size could exist on Earth, employing all our technology to provide everyone with a "comfortable" lifestyle. But, I don't think we have that long, so even that will not work. In my book, I say we are already "over the cliff" on this degradation of the Earth, and even if we were to try to reduce our pollution and destruction, which we've shown no intention of doing, we will not succeed in preventing the eventual and now inevitable extinction of most of Earth's lifeforms, including, hopefully, our own.

Urbanization is just an example of the growth in the use of technology, which, in my book, I define as one of the three causes of humans' continual degradation of the Earth's biosphere. The other two causes I define are hubris and overpopulation.

I am not a climate scientist, but I could be called a "computer scientist." I do have a bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Engineering. And my book is not primarily about climate change but about how human technology is destroying the Earth's biosphere, which does certainly include "climate change." The last (only?) time my IQ was measured by a reputable organization was when I was about 18 and just graduating from high school. I scored very high on my SAT test and, along with about 20 kids from Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio, was taken to Notre Dame University for more testing. I'm 79 now, so that was 61 years ago. I don't have any documents that show those results, but I can assure you it was more than 110. Since then, I've learned that a high IQ might indicate that you can better understand how things work and make "good" decisions based on that, but it doesn't guarantee that you will make the "right" decision, especially when it comes to social issues. In fact, in my book, I refer to technology as "the physical instantiation of the human intellect." So you could consider advanced technology to be like a high IQ. Technology is what is destroying the Earth, and the cause of that is hubris, and Musk and Trump are undeniable examples of that. I hope you are not.

How could you know that your and Musk's IQs are above mine? You are right about one thing, though: I am a socialist.

Is that when your wife signs your bank book which can only be viewed with a UV (?) light ? Yes! That's it exactly...

Yeah and you are dead wrong. No, I am not wrong. When I type in my book's title, I get a warning that it has been prohibited. 🥺