NYT editorial argues that extinction of the human race would be good for planet Earth

Planet-Earth-Blue-Human-Eye-Elements

NYT editorial argues that extinction of the human race would be good for planet Earth

https://www.depopulation.news/2019-01-07-nyt-editorial-argues-extinction-of-humans-good-for-planet-earth.html

01/07/2019 / By Vicki Batts

The mainstream media is now trying to “normalize” the depopulation agenda. In a recent NYT editorial, Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?, Clemson University professor Todd May argues that the end of humanity wouldn’t be so bad after all. The left-wing has been using the global warming narrative to conjure up fear about imminent human extinction for years now, but declaring that the end of humanity would be good for the planet is taking the global depopulation agenda to a whole new level.

It would seem that the left-wing media is now launching the next phase of this grand extinction scheme. By publishing the opinion of Mr. Todd May, The New York Times is at the very least showing that this point of view is worthy of such a lofty platform, if not a full-blown endorsement. As Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently reported, there are many, many signs that the “extermination agenda” has already begun — and with headlines like Mays’ NYT piece floating around, it’s clear that the media is trying to push depopulation as the new “normal.”

What starts off as a “fringe” idea can very quickly become mainstream thought, if its publicized the right way. And it looks like the globalist Left is moving towards adopting depopulation as the next big thing on the party line.
NYT editorial says human extinction is “good”

In a recent opinion piece for the Times, Mr. Todd Mays states, “Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it.” He notes that humans are destroying the Earth through at least three different means: Factory farming and animal suffering, climate change, and an increasing human population. None of these things are going away any time soon, Mays contends.

“Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend,” the chemistry professor states.

Throughout the article, Mays compares and contrasts the sins of humanity against the greatness our species has also managed to achieve, asking if the things some select humans have accomplished have been worth the price our planet has been forced to pay.

While Mays does not come to an official conclusion on the matter, he does state, “It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy.”
Advancing the depopulation agenda

As writer Michael Snyder notes, Mays’ arguments also seem to insinuate that only cultures which have contributed something worthwhile are worth preserving. While other academics have pointed to population control or population reduction, Mays is jumping straight to total extinction.

In a recent article, Mike Adams, founder of Natural News and creator of Brighteon.com, revealed that many of the events happening in our world today are tied to one ultimate cause: Ending humanity. Adams writes:

Inescapably, a core feature of everything happening today is an anti-human agenda to exterminate humankind. Every major trend taking place today is preparing humankind for a mass extermination event, making sure humans cannot fight back, think for themselves or even reproduce.

Adams points to the aggressive calls to disarm citizens, cultural attacks on fertility and masculinity, poisoning of the food supply and other key issues as signs that there is a plan to take down the human race — and it’s already been put into action.

You can see more coverage of the globalist agenda at Depopulation.news.

Sources for this article include:

InfoWars.com

NYTimes.com

Homomutatus

500px-Homogenitus-and-Homomutatus
(Photo Courtesy of https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/homomutatus.html)

You might wonder what the hell a Homomutatus is.

a0971204103-16
(Photo Courtesy of https://theunabombermanifesto.bandcamp.com/album/homomutatus)

Homomutatus Cloud: Caused By Human Activity

Homomutatus Cloud

cirrus-fibratus-homomutatus

Homomutatus Cloud

homomutatus-cloud

Now for stupid question of the day…

Who are we supposed to trust enough with our lives, to just sit back and let the likes of Bill Gates and several other nazi-types decide what they are going to pollute us with????

Radical plan to artificially cool Earth’s climate could be safe, study finds
Experts worry that injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could put some regions at risk
Emily Holden in Washington
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/solar-geoengineering-climate-change-new-study

Mon 11 Mar 2019 15.09 EDT Last modified on Fri 15 Mar 2019 16.45 EDT

Study co-author says: ‘There is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable.’

clouds2
(photo: https://www.popsci.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-geoengineering)

A new study contradicts fears that using solar geoengineering to fight climate change could dangerously alter rainfall and storm patterns in some parts of the world.

Published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, the analysis finds that cooling the Earth enough to eliminate roughly half of warming, rather than all of it, generally would not make tropical cyclones more intense or worsen water availability, extreme temperatures or extreme rain. Only a small fraction of places, 0.4%, might see climate change impacts worsened, the study says.

Many climate experts have warned that cooling the Earth but keeping twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as before industrialization could put some regions at risk.

One scientist who read the paper published on Monday said it was not comprehensive enough to conclude that solar geoengineering – most likely involving spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, thereby mimicking gas from volcanoes and reflecting the sun’s heat – would be safe.

Some climate advocacy groups argue that banking on an unproven technology could hamstring efforts to reduce carbon dioxide still spewing from power plants and cars.

But study co-author David Keith, a Harvard professor who works in engineering and public policy, said researchers should not rule out geoengineering yet.

“I am not saying we know it works and we should do it now,” he said. “Indeed, I would absolutely oppose deployment now. There’s still only a little group of people looking at this, there’s lots of uncertainty.”

Keith said the study’s main message was that “there is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable”.

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories
Read more
The findings come as Nairobi hosts a United Nations Environment Programme meeting on limiting climate change. A UN-approved report last year – the 1.5 degree report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said that geoengineering by injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere may be necessary but would come with major uncertainties.

Keith hopes to dispel what he believes may be unsupported worries. Another scientist, however, said he was overstating the new study’s findings.

The analysis used climate modeling to project what could happen if the heat of the sun was turned down. Alan Robock, a geophysics professor and researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said it did not examine the potential effects of doing that with the most likely method: spraying aerosols into the atmosphere.

“They focus in this paper on temperature and water availability in different regions,” Robock said. “Those are only two things that would change with stratospheric aerosols.” He added that previous studies have made similar conclusions.

Robock said one of his studies contains a list of 27 reasons why Earth-cooling aerosols might be a bad idea. And he added that the technology could cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year and would pose complicated ethical questions, such as whether people have a right to see a blue sky.

“We’re not able right now to say whether, if global warming continues, we should ever decide to start spraying this stuff into the stratosphere,” Robock said. “Would solar-radiation management, would geoengineering make it more dangerous or less dangerous?

“That’s the question we have to answer, and we don’t have enough information.”