Insight from Psalms 49
The rich think their wealth protects them from death. They brag about how rich they are. But no one has enough money to buy back a life, and you cannot bribe God.
You will never get enough money to pay for your own life. You will never have enough to buy the right to live forever and keep you body out of the grave.
Look, the wise die the same as fools and stupid people. They die and leave their wealth to others. The grave will be their new home forever. And how much land they owned will not make any difference.
People might get wealthy, but they cannot stay here forever. They will die like the animals. That is what happens to all who trust in themselves and to anyone who accepts their way of life. They are just like sheep, but the grave will be their pen. Death will be their shepherd.
When morning comes, the good people will enjoy victory, as the bodies of the proud slowly rot in grave, far away from their fancy houses…….
Don’t be afraid of people just because they are rich. Don’t be afraid of people just because they have big, fancy houses. They will not take anything with them when they die. They will not take their wealth with them.
A wealthy man might tell himself how well he has done in life. And other people might praise him. But the time will come for him to die and go to his ancestors. And he will never see the light of day.
If it’s ever seemed to you as though liberals speak in their own nonsensical language, fasten your seatbelt, because we’re about to confirm it once and for all.
In the spirit of tolerance and political correctness, the University of Minnesota (UMN) has offered students a resource guide so that they can learn how to use non-binary pronouns when speaking to or about an individual that doesn’t simply go by “he” or “she.”
The resource guide, which is posted on the UMN Center for Writing’s website, explains that while most people are familiar with the more traditional –pronouns like she, her, hers, he, him, and his – students “may not be familiar with how to use those pronouns in sentences,” with the solution being to “learn the typical forms that nonbinary gender pronouns can take.”
“The following chart provides examples of some nonbinary gender pronouns in a variety of forms,” the resource guide continues before displaying a chart with the pronouns “they/them/theirs,” “ey/em/eirs,” “ze/zir/zirs,” and “co/co/co’s.” Writers are advised to “consider adding an explanatory footnote” if those reading the paper aren’t familiar with nonbinary pronouns. One example of a footnote reads, “In this paper, I use the nonbinary gender pronouns [name them] because the people I am citing and/or to whom I am referring use these pronouns to refer to themselves. It is important to me that I respect their identities in my writing by using the appropriate gender pronouns.”
Despite the fact that those who think they are something other than a “he” or a “she” are clearly delusional, it’s not at all a stretch to say that the progressive push to create a more politically correct world has gone way too far. North of the border in Canada, for example, Canadians could be charged with a hate crime for using the wrong gender pronouns. In other words, if you were to refer to someone who was clearly a biological man as a “he,” but they wanted to be called “she,” you could be jailed, fined or even forced to take anti-bias training.
By a 67-11 vote, Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which officially adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” into the country’s Human Rights Code and labels it as a crime in its Criminal Code. Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, was ecstatic that the bill had passed. “Great news,” he announced. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #Loveislove.”
Given how radical and utterly insane the modern day liberals are, it’s entirely possible that the United States could adopt a similar policy in the near future, at which point the left will have near total control over what people say and how they say it. It is just like something out of George Orwell’s famous novel 1984, only this time, the threats posed by a big brother government aren’t stuck between a front cover and back cover; they are happening in real life, like a nightmare that has come true. (Related: Read about how politically correct language control is a danger to our society.)
There is good news, however. According to a 2015 Rasmussen survey, 71 percent of American adults believe that our country’s embrace of political correctness is problematic, while just 18 percent disagreed and 10 percent had no opinion. While the survey didn’t specifically give a definition of political correctness, it did suggest that it had to do with social, corporate or legal pressure from liberals to only choose words that are inclusive and non-offensive.
At the very least, nearly three quarters of American adults saying that political correctness is a problem is a clear sign that the vast majority of us are fed up with the ongoing assault on free speech, and yes, that does include telling us which pronouns we should use and which ones we shouldn’t.
by: Jayson Veley,
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was one of the 15 largest nuclear power stations in the world, until it sustained massive damage when Japan was hit first by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, and then a massive tsunami, on March 11, 2011. Almost 16,000 people died in the disaster, and another 160,000 lost their homes and employment. Japan has been involved in an extensive clean-up campaign ever since.
Now, the Telegraph is reporting that the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which operates the nuclear plant and has been responsible for cleaning up the mess, has announced the release of radioactive tritium straight into the Pacific Ocean. The announcement has been met with outrage by environmental groups and locals alike.
Among those most affected by the disaster were the fishermen of Fukushima. Even two years into the cleanup operations, The Guardian reported that over 300 tons of radioactive groundwater was still seeping into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, not only killing marine life, but obliterating the local fishing industry. After all, nobody wants to risk eating radioactive fish. [Related: London grocery stores have been selling Fukushima rice, despite fears of radioactive contamination.]
“I haven’t been able to fish since the tsunami,” Kazuo Niitsuma, a 63-year-old local fisherman, told The Guardian at the time. “People want to be reassured that they are buying fish that is safe to eat, and we can’t give them that guarantee at the moment. … At times like this, it feels like the nuclear problem will never be resolved, and for that Tepco and the government must take responsibility.”
TEPCO has done anything but accept that responsibility. After they initially failed to deal with the contaminated water and then did all they could to hide the extent of the problem, very few people have much faith in anything they say.
They are now adamantly insisting that the radioactive tritium they are going to release into the ocean will not be a problem because it will be diluted in the vast body of water. The company has been struggling to find a way to deal with the 770,000 tons of contaminated radioactive water being stored in 580 tanks at the site. While most of the radioactive materials have been filtered from the water, they have not been able to get rid of the tritium.
Environmental groups refuse to accept that explanation, insisting that the company has had plenty of time to find a solution that will not further harm the local fishing industry and destroy more marine life. [Related: If you’re concerned about the health of our oceans, visit Enviro.news]
“This accident happened more than six years ago and the authorities should have been able to devise a way to remove the tritium instead of simply announcing that they are going to dump it into the ocean,” Aileen Mioko-Smith, a campaigner with Green Action Japan, angrily told The Telegraph.
Who can trust the word of a company that conspired with the government in the weeks and months after the disaster to cover up its severity? An insider report, which included the testimony of dozens of TEPCO employees, confirmed that they were instructed to remain silent about the meltdown. This lie of omission needlessly exposed hundreds of thousands of people to radiation and future health consequences, including cancer.
TEPCO’s president, Naomi Hirose, admitted at the time, “I would say it was a cover-up. It’s extremely regrettable.”
It is indeed regrettable that the company responsible for this disaster has not shouldered the responsibility of honorably cleaning it up and protecting the livelihoods of those in the area, like the now desperate fishermen of Fukushima.
by Tracey Watson,Newstarget
As technology advances, more workers are becoming electronically chained to their desks for several hours per day, and that sedentary work life is taking its toll, according to new research confirming earlier studies indicating lengthy sitting at work can lead to an early grave.
As reported by The Washington Times, a new study by researchers from Columbia University builds on previous research and adds to an ever-growing body of evidence that our modern workplace and lifestyle is killing us sooner, even if we take time during the week to exercise regularly.
The evidence seems to indicate that no matter our race, gender, sex, or other demographic factors, the results are the same — long periods of uninterrupted sitting is just not healthy.
Leader of the largest study of its kind thus far, which was conducted at Columbia’s Exercise Testing Laboratory, Dr. Keith Diaz said what surprised him most about his team’s findings wasn’t the accumulated hours of sitting throughout the day, but that people sitting uninterrupted for far shorter periods — even 60 to 90 minutes — lead to shorter lifespans on average.
“This finding I think will help shift our understanding about the risks of sitting by showing that to reduce the harmful consequences of sitting one needs to both decrease the overall time they spend sitting and take frequent movement breaks when they do sit,” he told the Times.
The paper reported further:
The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and followed a national representative population of 8,000 individuals older than 45 for an average of four years.
The researchers employed the use of hip-mounted accelerometers to monitor how long people sat and their movement. Previous studies evaluating sedentary time and health had participants self-report their sitting and movement periods.
During the period examined, researchers said there were 340 recorded deaths. After the team adjusted for several variables like race, sex, and age, they found that the overall number of hours of sitting daily combined with long periods of uninterrupted sitting led to earlier death. (Related: More evidence suggests that desk jobs and excessive sitting are deadly.)
Adding exercise to daily routines did not seem to help much, if at all. Researchers said, “all-cause mortality” was still higher when people sat for more than an hour to an hour-and-a-half at one time.
“We think this gives a clear message that besides exercising, you also should be mindful of moving (and not being sedentary) throughout the day,” Diaz told the Times in an email.
Participants in the study recorded an average of 12.3 hours of sitting and sedentary time during a 16-hour waking day. In order to stave off the deadly effects of sitting for so long, the research team recommended movement breaks every 30 minutes throughout the day. They also recommended that businesses seeking to intervene and implement more breaks throughout the day should use the 30-minute limit as their guide.
“Both the total volume of sedentary time and its accrual in prolonged, uninterrupted bouts are associated with all-cause mortality, suggestive that physical activity guidelines should target reducing and interrupting sedentary time to reduce risk for death,” the research team concluded in their published study.
There are some ways for you to actually get a bit of exercise in while you’re at work and you’re taking one of those 30-minute breaks. Consider:
— If you work in an office building, walk up and down a few flights of steps;
— Do a few sets of 10 pushups each;
— Perform sets of 20 jumping jacks;
— If you work someplace that has a company gym, definitely use it on your longer breaks, maybe even over lunch. In fact, if you don’t have a company gym you should suggest the company invest in one.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
by: JD Heyes,
According to a recent study conducted by North Carolina State University and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, may not be providing people with the amount of money required to maintain healthy eating habits. The study found that SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps, only subsidizes people with 43-60 percent of what it actually costs to remain consistent with federal dietary guidelines regarding what is considered to be a healthy diet.
“The federal government has defined what constitutes a healthy diet, and we wanted to know how financially feasible it was for low-income households, who qualify for SNAP benefits, to follow these guidelines,” explained Lindsey Haynes-Maslow, the co-author of a paper on the study who also happens to be an assistant professor of agricultural and human sciences at North Carolina State. (Related: Food stamp recipients are mostly buying and living on processed junk food that causes disease.)
While it’s certainly important to stick to a healthy diet and to treat your body right, the issue presented in this particular study is a tough one to deal with. On one hand, you want people to be able to eat healthy if they want to and not be forced to consume junk food for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but on the other hand, there simply aren’t many options that aren’t economically damaging or unconstitutional.
The obvious answer would be to increase the amount of money given to SNAP recipients so that they could sustain healthy eating habits if they so choose. The problem with this is twofold. First, more funding for those on government assistance means that more money would be redistributed from people who have worked hard to people who don’t work at all. Our country was founded with emphasis on the individual, not on the collective, meaning that we are supposed to work hard and make money for ourselves, not for others.
The second problem with increasing the amount of money given to people on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is that it would further expand America’s already generous welfare state and generate even more dependency on the federal government.
Between 2008 and 2016, America had as its president one of the biggest spenders – if not the biggest spender – that this country had ever seen. During his time in office, Barack Obama and his liberal henchmen in Washington D.C. increased the number of people on food stamps by an astonishing 32 percent, from 33,490,000 recipients in 2009 up to 44,219,123 by October of 2016. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 44,219,123 welfare recipients represents 13.6 percent of the entire United States population. Furthermore, between 2009 and 2016, the amount of money spent on food stamps climbed by $16.3 billion, from $50.3 billion to $66.6 billion. Coupled with the fact that America is already 20 trillion dollars in debt, increasing the amount we spend on welfare just isn’t practical. (Related: The government is preparing to let food stamp recipients shop at online retailers using taxpayer money.)
The other option to deal with the problem outlined in the study would be to pass some type of government regulation compelling corporations to decrease the amount that they charge for their food products. This would allow food stamp recipients to purchase more healthy food products for less. The obvious problem here, however, is that such a regulation would be highly unconstitutional and a prime example of government overreach. As history has shown us, the bigger the government grows and the more influence they are able to gain over the private sector, the more the economy contracts, making the option of federally mandated prices infeasible.
Instead, what our country should be doing is putting an emphasis on hard work and determination so that people no longer have to rely on SNAP in the first place. With hard work comes success, with success comes money, and with money comes the ability to purchase healthier food options.
by: Jayson Veley, September 15, 2017
A new warning has been issued over quinine, a medicine and ingredient found in beverages like tonic water and bitter lemon.
Long used as a drug for malaria, quinine is no longer a recommended treatment for any condition by the U.K.’s two major healthcare watchdogs. However, that hasn’t stopped doctors in the country from issuing 3.5 million prescriptions for it every year to people who are suffering from issues like cramps, muscle discomfort and restless legs. Doctors are prescribing it off-label for such conditions, and in many cases, patients take it for several years.
Now, researchers from University College London and the Royal Free Medical School have discovered that people who take quinine for more than a year have a 25 percent higher likelihood of early death than those who do not take the drug. Interestingly, those who were younger than 50 had a greater rise in their risk of death than older patients.
The researchers studied those taking prescriptions for quinine of 100 milligrams a day or more over the course of a year or longer. Their findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Quinine can cause an abnormal heart rhythm in some people, possibly triggering a heart attack. In addition, it can affect blood clotting, which could lead to a stroke or heart attack from a blocked artery.
Watch out for tonic water, too
While drinking a few gin and tonics here and there might not be problematic on its own, those who are already taking quinine as a medicine need to watch their intake because it could heighten their risk even further. In rare cases, even the small amount found in tonic water could be enough to cause one of quinine’s most serious side effects, a severe drop in blood platelet counts that can cause external and internal bleeding. Another worrying side effect is permanent kidney damage.
It is also worth noting that quinine passes through the placenta and can cause birth defects, which means that pregnant women should avoid it at all costs. In addition, it is known to interact with some common drugs like statins and the heart failure medication digoxin.
It’s also possible to develop an allergy or sensitivity to it even from drinking tonic water occasionally, and taking a medicinal quinine dose years later can trigger a full-blown reaction in such individuals.
Quinine banned in the U.S. as a treatment for leg cramps
The FDA reports that quinine is responsible for 665 adverse events as well as 93 deaths. Doctors in the U.S. have been banned from prescribing it for nighttime leg cramps since 2010. The only condition it is approved to treat by the FDA is malaria, and even then, it is typically only used in cases where newer drugs are not effective.
The study’s author, Irwin Nazareth, said: “My advice to anyone on quinine for these conditions is to stop taking it, and GPs would be well advised not to prescribe quinine.”
Lenox Hill Hospital’s Director of Neurosurgical Pain, Dr. Kiran V. Patel, told CBS News that it’s an old wives’ tale that quinine water can help leg cramps, even though many patients tell her they’ve been drinking tonic water to help ease the condition.
People suffering from restless kegs and cramps can try taking a vitamin B complex supplement instead, and stretching may also help, depending on the cause of the cramps.
by: Isabelle Z, September 15, 2017
In the world we live today, technology is so advanced that robots continuously do some jobs for us. More and more companies start to replace humans with robots to do the job, which then results to unemployment. And now, robots will soon take over the fast food industry.
According to a Daily Mail article, an artificial intelligence-based robot named “Flippy” is set to replace human workers in 50 locations of a California-based restaurant chain CaliBurger in 2018.
“We are excited about the impact Miso’s AI-based solutions will have for the restaurant industry,” David Zito, Miso’s chief executive officer (CEO), told CBS as quoted in The Daily Mail article. “Flippy cooks the perfect burger — every time,” according to the company.
The machine was designed with a six-axis robotic arm with a claw-like tool that opens at the end to flip burgers and place them on buns once cooked. The robot works in tandem with a kitchen staff and functions as an assistant. It will alert the human worker when it is time to add the cheese and other burger toppings. Furthermore, it has cameras and sensors and its software lets it distinguish between different meats on the grill.
Zito also said that the robot will likely push workers out of their current jobs. “Humans will always play a very critical role in the hospitality side of the business…We just don’t know what the new roles will be yet in the industry.” (Related: Robotics revolution to replace most human workers in three generations; labor class to be systematically eliminated)
Zito said they started with a grill cook assistant because the position is among the hardest to hire. “Flippy is the first in our series of adaptive robots that will create smarter, safer, and more efficient commercial kitchens,” Zito said.
CaliBurger, the restaurant that makes California-style burgers, already started testing the machine earlier this year.
Originally, Flippy was set to be hired in the 50 CaliBurger branches for 2019. But a large infusion of capital made it possible to set it earlier.
Miso Robotics received in July a $3.1 million budget from strategic investors, such as Acacia Research and Match Robotics VC, to fine-tune specific features of the soon-to-be worker robot.
“While the biggest companies in the world are focused on using our computer vision and artificial intelligence to drive cars and manage the home, Cali Group will facilitate and lead the adoption of these emerging technologies in the restaurant and retail industries,” said John Miller, chairman and CEO of Cali Group, during the funding announcement. Cali Group co-founded and funded Miso Robotics.
Robots assisting employees in CaliBurger restaurants would allow the company to make food faster, safer, and with fewer errors.
“Our investment in Miso Robotics is part of our broader vision for creating a unified operating system that will control all aspects of a restaurant from in-store interactive gaming entertainment to automated ordering and cooking processes, ‘intelligent’ food delivery, and real-time detection of operating errors and pathogens,” Miller said.
Miso Robotics shared that Flippy can be installed in less than five minutes. There is also a digital system that accompanies the robot that sends order from the counter back to the robot.
According to the National Restaurant Association, the restaurant industry is the second largest private-sector employer in the United States and by 2027 is projected to add 1.6 million jobs. Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projected a 10 percent employment growth from 2014 to 2024 in the industry.
Will these kinds of inventions affect the predictions as companies continue to hire robots instead of humans?
by: Michelle Simmons, September 16, 2017
Most people living today — especially younger people — have no idea that a key agenda of globalism is the elimination of “undesirable” humans from the gene pool. They believe that ideas of “eugenics” and genocide were only carried out by the Nazis, not by American university professors and presidential science advisors. So they have no grasp of the context in which Planned Parenthood, for example, operates today as a depopulation engine to eliminate blacks from society. (Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a black-hating eugenicist whose ideas directly inspired the genocidal goals of the Third Reich.)
The New York Times article, shown below, quotes Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a depopulation advocate, as well as President Richard Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, who said that “population control should be the prime task of every government.” (Read PopulationControl.news for more headlines on this subject.)
Compulsory family regulation run by government
In the article, shown below, Dr. Ehrlich laments the fact that biologists believe, “compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth.” In essence, he is arguing that the government should be in charge of reproductive rights, determining who is allowed to reproduce and who must be sterilized.
To achieve the sterilization goals, he “urged establishing a Federal Population Commission ‘with a large budget for propaganda,’” reports the New York Times. He also called for, “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply” in order to cause mandatory infertility.
Dr. Barry Commoner of Washington University in St. Louis added to the discussion:
Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.
This agenda is already well under way
Most Americans have no awareness that this agenda is well under way. Flu shots, for example, are now scientifically confirmed to cause spontaneous abortions, a form of infertility and population control. This explains exactly why the CDC began pushing for flu shot vaccines during all three trimesters of gestation in expectant mothers.
Sperm viability is also plummeting across the modern world, according to dozens of published scientific studies. One such study — conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem — found that sperm concentrations have plummeted more than 50 percent from 1973 to 2011. According to the abstract of this study as reported in Science Daily:
These findings strongly suggest a significant decline in male reproductive health that has serious implications beyond fertility and reproduction, given recent evidence linking poor semen quality with higher risk of hospitalization and death.
Covert vectors for depopulation that are being pursued right now
The depopulation goals from 1969 are in full force in America today. Some of the vectors for covert sterilization and depopulation now include:
- Covert genetic modification of crops to grow RNA interference fragments that nullify male fertility in humans.
- The continued use of toxic mercury in flu shots in order to cause spontaneous abortions in pregnant women.
- Planned Parenthood abortion centers that target minority communities for eugenics “cleansing” of the gene pool.
- Inoculation of all vaccine recipients with hidden, cancer-causing viruses that are deliberately allowed to contaminate many vaccines. (See the SV40 Simian Virus fiasco affecting 98 million Americans via the polio vaccine.) (Also, read the book “Plague” by Judy Mikovitz.)
- The planned, deliberate use of cancer-causing ingredients in the popular food supply, including sodium nitrite in processed meat, inducing widespread cancer and early deaths (the clueless population then eats itself to death, while enriching the cancer industry).
- Spiking public health vaccines with covert sterilization chemicals, exactly as has been confirmed in African vaccination campaigns that target young black women for sterilization without their knowledge or consent.
If you do not know that mass sterilization efforts are underway right now to eliminate human fertility and drastically reduce the global population, then you are not yet well-versed on reality. Even Bill Gates openly talks about achieving the correct amount of population reduction by using vaccines and other vectors, saying:
The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
For the sake of preserving the historical record, we are reprinting the NYT article here, knowing that they are very likely to attempt to memory hole this article in another swipe at Orwellian-style revisionist history.
A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED
Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth
By GLADWIN HILL
Special to The New York Times
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24 – A possibility that the government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem.
The crusader, Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, among a number of commentators who called attention to the “population crisis” as the United States Commission for Unesco opened it 13th national conference here today.
Unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The 100-member commission, appointed by the Secretary of State, included representatives of Government, outside organizations, and the public. Some 500 conservationists and others are attending the two-day meeting at the St. Francis Hotel, devoted this year to environmental problems.
President Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, brought up the population question in his keynote speech last night, calling the reduction of the earth’s population growth rate to zero “the first great challenge of our time.”
Godfrey a Speaker
His comments went beyond recent statements of President Nixon, who in a message to Congress stressed the provision of birth control information to underprivileged women.
But the Federal Government’s willingness to come to grips with population limitation was questioned by another speaker, Arthur Godfrey, radio-television star and a conservation campaigner.
“Dr. DuBridge rightly said that population control should be the prime task of every government,” he said. “But is there anyone here – anyone – who thinks that this Administration, or the next of the next, will act with the kind of force that’s necessary?”
Dr. Erlich, who is a biologist said:
“Our first move must be to convince all those we can that the planet Earth must be viewed as a spaceship of limited carrying capacity.”
“I think that 150 million people (50 million fewer that there are now) would be an optimum number to live comfortably in the United States.
‘Alternative to Armageddon’
“Some biologists feel that compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth. It is a dismal prospect – except when viewed as an alternative to Armageddon.”
He urged establishing a Federal Population Commission “with a large budget for propaganda,” changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools.
He also urged “changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research so that the majority of it goes into the broad areas of population regulation, environment sciences, behavior sciences and related areas rather than into short-sighted programs on death control.”
If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply,” with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery.
Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, “the solution does not lie in that direction” because “other people already are suspicious of our motives.”
Economic Pressure Urged
Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.
Dr. Barry Commoner of St. Louis, Washington University ecologist, in an ensuing discussion period differed with Dr. Ehrlich.
He said that he thought the urge to multiply was rooted in the sense of insecurity. And that the better way to reduce reproduction was by “increasing the well-being of peoples.”
He also opposed chemical strategems on the ground that “every technological trick like that we’ve tried has caused disaster.”
Recapitulating the environmental problems stemming from population, Dr. Dubridge said: “Do we need more people on the earth? We all know the answer to that is no. Do we have to have more people? Also no.
“Can we reverse the urges of a billion years of evolving life? We can. We know techniques for reducing fertility. We are not fully utilizing them.”
Citing a widespread attitude, he said: ‘We have the right to have as many children as we can afford,’ we say. Do we, today? No.
“Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.”
Source: The New York Times
Published: November 25, 1969
First it was pilotless drones. Soon it could be driverless cars. And if the tech firms involved with their development are successful in achieving their goals, it will eventually be unmanned “ghost” ships as well that, according to new reports, could add yet another logistical mode of transfer to the human-less product delivery lineup.
Set to be unveiled by as early as 2020, unmanned ghost ships are the latest concept to hit the automation world. With many land-based automated delivery options already in the works, the natural next step is to pursue sea-based delivery methods that utilize water to get products where they need to go faster and more efficiently.
Christian Matthews, head of maritime technology at Liverpool John Moores University, recently published a piece in The Conversation explaining how the first automated cargo ship is already being developed for a Norwegian agricultural fertilizer company. If all goes according to plan, the vessel will sail on the open seas in less than three years.
But first, there have to be changes made to international shipping laws, which currently dictate that all ocean-going vessels must be manned by actual human being. Until that happens, automated ships will only be allowed to operate close to the coastlines of the countries in which they operate, in this case Norway.
But this could change, as the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced earlier this year that it may change the rules and allow unmanned vessels to traverse international waters. This is a promising advancement for companies like the Norway-based Yara Birkeland, which is already far along in bringing its first automated “ghost” ship to the commercial market.
The Yara vessel will reportedly be powered by only electricity, which means it won’t produce any polluting emissions. It will also inadvertently help to remove some 757 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the process by cutting the number of product delivery journeys required with diesel-powered trucks by an average of 40,000 trips per year.
Recognizing its potential, several shipping firms in Japan have indicated an eagerness to develop similar automation technologies. The British firm Rolls-Royce is also fully onboard with the concept, having earlier in the year demonstrated the world’s first remote-controlled, unmanned commercial ship. But what about the risks?
Emerging research suggests that unmanned ships may actually be safer and lead to fewer accidents
Safety is obviously the most pressing concern with the use of automated “ghost” ships, as not having any humans present to take control in the event of an emergency represents a serious danger, especially far out in the open waters. But there are many involved with the technology’s development who believe that, once it becomes more refined, will actually be safer than if a crew was onboard.
A 2016 annual overview put together by the European Maritime Safety Agency found that most – some 62 percent – of the 880 sea vessel accidents that took place between the years of 2011 and 2015 were caused by “human erroneous action.” This suggests that, were humans not involved, such accidents wouldn’t have taken place.
Another study published back in March came to a similar conclusion after reviewing the circumstances surrounding 100 sea vessel accidents that occurred between the years of 1999 and 2015. The research team found that, had those vessels not been manned by humans, they may not have become grounded or collided with other objects or vessels.
“As the Yara Birkeland starts her journey towards the status of the first fully autonomous ship, there will be lots of interest in how she fares. It feels inevitable that unmanned ships will come of age,” says Matthews. “But there are still plenty of problems that need to be solved before they become a mainstream choice for carriers.”
by Ethan Huff, Natural News