MudMan

All I have is what you can get by looking him up, and I am definitely not an expert. I’m saying that this one guy referencing his one model for his one theory of society-as-ecology deserves a more nuanced headline than “the world is ending in 25 years”. If I can speak on anything here it’s on the reporting.

He isn’t even saying anything that controversial when you dig through to the actual statements, which is a constant of mainstream news reporting on science news. “With all these things, at the rate we’re going now, we can carry on with our present unsustainable use for a few decades, and by around 2050 we won’t be able to continue it any longer” is barely any more severe of a warning than any climate scientist or ecologist has been making about these things for the past four decades.

Hell, if anything he seems to be less concerned than the average Lemmy denizen:

He explained: "As for what we can do about it, whether to deal with it by individual action, or at a middle scale by corporate action, or at a top scale by government action - all three of those.

"Individually we can do things. We can buy different sorts of cars. We can do less driving. We can vote for public transport. That’s one thing.

“There are also corporate interests…I see that corporations, big corporations, while some of them do horrible things, some of them also are doing wonderful things which don’t make the front page.”

Post that around these parts, you’ll get people calling you a corporate shill for even entertaining that personal behaviour has an impact in this process or that any corporation is doing anything positive.

Don’t hear the Express go “dude on the Internet thinks it’s high time we ban cars before we all die”, though.

“Popsci author repeats claim he’s been using for decades to sell books that most anthropologists question”.

Man, sometimes I think newspapers and traditional media should be banned from reporting on science at all. I am very critical of social media and what Internet does to communication, but I’ll admit that the extremely focused experts that communicate on a narrow field for a living do a much, much better job of parsing published claims than traditional generalist news ever did. I am exhausted of impossible galaxies, stars that “should not exist”, healthy superfood, cures for cancer and world-ending events.

You seem to be factually wrong. Every source quotes the crimes he was found guilty of as “rape and sexual acts with a child”, in quotes. “Sexually assaulted” seems to be an informal description chosen by the journalist, as it’s not quoted.

That is a pretty strong reaction to correct the record on something where you seem to be wrong yourself. I’m gonna agree with the other commenter here that you may want to think about why that is.

For the record, if you wanted to be mad about the headline, the most misleading portion is that he was not fined, he was given a year and a half prison sentence that will not require him to go to prison for procedural reasons. Also, he spent five months incarcerated during the trial which, as is common in Europe and other places, is counted towards his sentence once found guilty.

Still a surprisingly lenient sentence given the crime. For reference, where I am the rape would get him 1-4 years, so he could have been in this situation where I am with a lenient judge, but the underage victim would get him at least two years and there’s no avoiding jail with that big of a sentence. I have no idea how Swiss laws are formulated here.