Admittedly the article is poorly written and presents things in an extreme voice which is alienating to an outside audience. These are easy things to point out and have been used in this thread to dismantle the message of the article. However, I ask anyone with a dissenting opinion to provide an argument against the premise that: "Civilization is facing numerous grave threats with few solutions on the horizon nor substantive international cooperation working towards serious solutions. Furthermore, the graveness of these issues should be communicated to the general public as a call to action.", which is what I believe the article is really about.
No comments yet.