That’s what misanthrope extremist David Attenborough thinks of humanity.
I suspect he also wants to confine the infection to a single planet.
And as always, my advice to such people is to lead by example.
[Update a while later]
Here’s another person who should lead by example. Paul Ehrlich, who’s been wrong about pretty much all of his predictions for forty years, says that no one has a right to twelve, or even three children.
Not that that distinguishes it from any other topic on which he discourses.
Was it Fast and Furious on steroids?
It’s a theory that seems to fit the available evidence.
A world without political opposition.
It’s always ultimately the way of “progressives.” After all, what sane person would oppose “progress”? They can’t be allowed to stand athwart history.
Too many students chasing too few jobs. Any other industry that was so deceptive and manupulative, and offered such a poor value for the money, would be excoriated by the media, if not subject to actual civil and criminal lawsuits.
I attended their press conference this morning in Santa Monica. Clark Lindsey has notes from the webcast. I was the person who asked the question about their role versus that of Planetary Resources, and whether they viewed them as complementary, or competition.
An interesting idea from Randy Barnett. It’s a radical solution, at least in the context of today’s political environment, but it’s certainly constitutional, and we need to do something to at least slow down, if not pare back Leviathan.
This is strongly related to my concept of the Apollo cargo cult. If we want to justify humans in space, we have to stop using the word “exploration,” because it simply raises the issue of letting robots do it. Talking instead about space development and particularly settlement implies humans, by definition. And if we can’t persuade the taxpayers that those are worthwhile goals, and instead try to sell them a bill of goods, then we don’t deserve taxpayer money for our hobbies. And cults.
So far, so bad. And Ezra Klein, to the surprise of no one intelligent, comes off as a fool.
The Obama administration’s non-existent red line:
Obama says he means not to contain the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons, but to prevent Tehran from acquiring them. Actions, however, speak louder than words. His new cabinet picks, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and John Brennan, are all longtime advocates of engagement with rogue regimes—without any fallback plan in the predictable event that talking to the mullahs comes to nothing, as it has for more than 30 years. With his Syria policy, Obama is in effect telling the Islamic Republic that if engagement doesn’t work, if sanctions don’t make the regime reconsider, then he’ll do nothing to stop them.
But you already knew that, unless you were a low-information voter who reelected Obama because…Bain Capital! And lady parts!