Well, this method comes from physicists. So one can assume that whatever they used, it was perfectly spherical.

Problem solved.

'Simple'

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Nuke'em from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

And we have a winner, folks!

I'm very sorry but your approach does not lend itself to a book (or better yet, a series of books), supplements, a prime time guest appearance on Oprah, glossy magazine advertisements, special (and expensive) foods or really any other aspect of modern merchandising.

Please re work your proposal and come back to us when you've figured out how to make money off of it.

Ah yes, the 'noble savage' approach. While it can hardly be argued that our current civilization doesn't have profound problems the only way we could return to anything resembling a dispersed hunter-gatherer / small tribal society would for human population to drop by a couple of billion. That might be in store for us no matter what we're planning on happening but it isn't a practical road map (you first).

Also, he does a poor job of showing that the various human ills he ascribes to agricultural civilization were indeed caused by or worsened by grains and concentrated cities. There is rather a lack of data in prehistoric times about important parts of history.

Actually, that's not quite true. Having an extended family (ie, grandparents) has been noted in many cultures to afford a survival advantage. It allows for more education time, more time for other family members to get food and shelter and allows for skills to be honed and passed on. So humans may well be different in this respect although extended social groups are found in many animal genera.

Obviously not. They didn't have the metric system in the Paleolithic era.

Give up coffee? Now that's crazy talk.

This. Move your ass so the rest of you keeps moving. You really don't need all that much exercise to keep in basic shape - an hour a day of moderate cardiovascular exercise like brisk walking.

What is amazing is the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Western World don't get anywhere near this.

Kill your television. You can even get Bonus Points for not worrying about how much your cable company is ripping you off.

Certainly. However, traditional Inuit culture was pretty hard on folks. Although some people did make it into their 70's, many died much earlier - often of starvation (and infectious disease whose morbidity and mortality can be strongly influenced by nutrition). Although they rarely got heart attacks (we suppose, there were rather few autopsies done on these folk) and diabetes was almost unheard of, it's hard to call a traditional Inuit elder as 'healthy'. We also really don't know how long traditional peoples typically lived - birth and death statistics were not typically kept in the hinterlands and people's recollection of events 50 years in the past tends to be hazy.

So it always amuses me that the paleo folks think that the hunter gatherer existence represented the pinnacle of human evolution.

Including your brain.

Endless summer!

Less Discovery Channel for you, buster.

You are looking at the wrong end point. Yes, the planet will survive. Very few people are worried about that. You have to be a real doomer / gloomer to stay away worrying about Venus level runaway heating. But you can have a number of other scenarios that can be considered less than pleasant:

- Intensifying the sixth major extinction event. The other five really changed the planet around, much to Randall's comfort. The planet will survive this next one but since apex predators tend to be significantly effected and humans are the ultimate apex predator, this might be considered a Bad Idea.
- Increasing temperatures increase arable land (generally). The problem is that of time frames. It may take hundreds of thousands of years to convert warm swamps into farmland. Most Americans can't handle fasting between gas stations, much less millennia
- Increasing resource stresses - you may have noticed that humans are having a bit of a problem creating stable geopolitical structures during geologically and biologically stable periods. Add big swings in weather / climate, no matter which way, creates more stressors and more reasons for us not to get along with each other.
- Which segues into another bit of bad timing. Changing climate while simultaneously cranking human population to over seven billion. For a number of important resources it can be argued that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. The degree and speed of upcoming climate events may well overcome our ability to feed, water and house all of us.

So, it's not even a big issue which way the climate goes. The only way climate can mitigate the other problems is if it stays relatively constant. That doesn't appear to be happening.

What this really points out is that we need to lay the groundwork for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Robots.