and this chart shows how what was released from Chernobyl compares to all coal and nuclear emissions ever combined.
Just need to point out that it does not. Especially since it only includes things like the effect to a single person, for very narrow times/events. This chart, while amazing, is not comparing total levels of anything!
I appreciate the optimism, but I find the idea of "we will be cause we need to" to be extremely naive. It ignores a history full of fallen civilizations and makes broad future predictions with no evidence whatsoever. Also, it seems to calm any worries without involving any particular push to action nor plan to follow. Mankind's epitaph could well be "they did what they needed to survive, till they failed".
On the other hand the idea of reducing population seem very sound. It involves practical plans with some evidence of good results (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning), and I don't know anyone that actually proposes to kill people (yes, China used draconian measures but that does not mean other options are not possible). If we added BILLIONS of people over 50 years (say, from 3bn in 1960 to 7bn in 2012) thinking of reversing the trend in another 50 doesn't seem to me the aberration you seem to believe. Overall, it makes the statement that many of our current, social, economical and environmental problems seem to come from too many wanting to consume more, so reducing the number of people that needs to be supported helps diminish said problems. Also, reducing serious organizations (like the UN http://unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/ch6.shtml) and serious people to "these naysayers" hardly gets us to a better understanding.
With all due respect, I consider the fact that you were modded insightful kind of dangerous.
I would be curious though as to what would happen if you acquired an obvious patent and tried to sue a politician with it
The obvious would happen. You would lose, but it would probably not change much for the common guy. The main problem on your train of though is that you are expecting a rational, constitutional, response. Real life allows for solutions that are neither.
Sincerely, I doubt it would work. First, you are adding yet another middleman, increasing practical costs and bureaucracy for no reason. Second, there is a huge incentive for the USPTO to reject things to cash the fee. Third, it would imply a process of appeal that will never be used by the little guy.
I mean, the end result might well be less patents, but the mechanism is equally flawed and a burden for those who should get one. I would love to see less patents around, hell, after reading this long paper on the topic I'm convinced no patents are needed at all, even for pharmaceuticals. But unless you abolish patents completely, you need some system that minimizes abuse.