From a reader:
I would honestly expect you’re a pretty smart guy or you wouldn’t be writing for National Review. I suspect (if it reassures in some way) that you are smarter than me. Probably more successful too—congrats on that.
…sustaining the global economy justifies the quite possible destruction of human civilization? Or, perhaps, the death of 95% of the biosphere if enough of the undersea frozen methane slurry bubbles up (just like last time, check out the fossil record if you’re one of those Republicans that enjoys “facts.”)?
Without the substrate of people, animals, insects, tress, viable farmland, etc., the economy’s pretty much worthless, wouldn’t you agree?
At some point your priorities are gonna get straightened out. Hopefully it’ll be before your children catch “River Blindness” or some other fun tropical disease.
Man is apparently the only mammal too stupid not to sh*t where he lives.
Sorry for the sarcasm, it’s more reflexive than particularly aimed at you–it’s just I read stuff like this and I’m left with two choices—the writer is being willfully dense or is too ignorant to be shaping public policy in the 21st century. Neither reassures.