Judicial transhumanism.

Tulio Cicero already said it "the closer the fall of an empire is, the crazier are its laws" and this is what we are experiencing in the decline, in the swan song of the Europe of old Europe, and that is what that we just saw in the form of a Sentence a few days ago is pathetic, surreal and worrying in equal parts.

It is something that has gone unnoticed in the media, well not in all of them, the progressive left has celebrated it with champagne, but believe me it is not to celebrate because apart from being ridiculous, it is dangerous and it seems that the meteorological phenomena are going in against Human Rights, something of truth that if you wanted to have seen everything is overcome.

It seems that some crazy Greta Believers, fanatics of climate change, are denouncing Switzerland, attention not for emitting gases, not for skipping the Kyoto protocol, not for doing nothing, but for not doing enough against climate change, the court of Strasbourg Human Rights rules in favor of these Greta believers and condemns Switzerland for not doing enough to fight climate change, which leaves me with two questions.

The first, what is sufficient, what is it, how is “sufficient” quantified in a sentence in the opinion of what and who and secondly, most important human rights, Switzerland has not been denounced before an administrative court in which they are violated. a series of legislations, nor is it denounced for going against international treaties that it has signed in relation to climate change such as the Kyoto protocol or is it not denounced for allowing illegal discharges, no, it is condemned for not doing enough and in a Human Rights court human rights that paint human rights in a meteorological issue such as climate change.

This is philosophically very serious and has a perverse reading that few people are going to make and that is to equate humanity with a physical phenomenon such as meteorology, that is, transhumanism, trivialization of the human being, you can only judge the rupture of a human right when it is one human against another human, a government violates Human Rights when freedom is not respected, when plurality is not respected, when it is tortured, when it is mistreated, when it is murdered, but what heat or cold for a while? a meteorological process intervenes a Strasbourg court of human rights, to what level do they lower us humans.

When you equate climate and human in a sentence you are denigrating humans, this is the same as if an animal court judged Human Rights, it is the other way around, the rights of animals are judged by humans because they protect those animals, but equating human being and climate does not seem philosophically dangerous to you, because I insist it is not an administrative court because legislation or a court that judges international treaties has been vulnerable.

Because if we remove all the cars to go on horseback, it would be enough, the horses shit, they emit methane, it would not be enough either, we would also have to remove the horses and we would walk, but walking we breathe is not enough, why don't we they eliminate directly; All of this is very dangerous, dangerous and hypocritical because we are going to see how it is possible that the same authorities, opinion movements, etc. on the one hand are saying that sacrifices are made to your mobility, your consumption, your way of seeing society, of understanding the things to save the planet and those same people who blame you and make you afraid because the temperature may rise one degree in the next 50 years are the same ones who are demanding that you pay your taxes, more weapons, rearm yourself and they are convincing you that you get into a war with Russia.

I don't know why I have misunderstood it and since we are talking about reviving the “Cold War” maybe that is it, you have seen “cold” in one word, oh cold war we are going to promote the Cold War that we cool the planet, maybe that is it and I have not found out; Not the Cold War, the same ones who are making you afraid because the planet is going to end because it rises one degree, they are the same ones who are encouraging you to go to a third world war because Russia is very bad.

We are going to blame the Europeans for being very polluting, but we are going to invite them to get into a war with Russia because of course provoking one of the countries with the most nuclear power in the world is not a risk, it is not a zero risk for the planet. Not that raising the world's temperature by one degree puts it in serious danger of destruction, but a nuclear war is nonsense compared to climate change, right.

Tulio Cicero already said it "the closer the fall of an empire is, the crazier are its laws" and this is what we are experiencing in the decline, in the swan song of the Europe of old Europe, and that is what that we just saw in the form of a Sentence a few days ago is pathetic, surreal and worrying in equal parts.

It is something that has gone unnoticed in the media, well not in all of them, the progressive left has celebrated it with champagne, but believe me it is not to celebrate because apart from being ridiculous, it is dangerous and it seems that the meteorological phenomena are going in against Human Rights, something of truth that if you wanted to have seen everything is overcome.

It seems that some crazy Greta Believers, fanatics of climate change, are denouncing Switzerland, attention not for emitting gases, not for skipping the Kyoto protocol, not for doing nothing, but for not doing enough against climate change, the court of Strasbourg Human Rights rules in favor of these Greta believers and condemns Switzerland for not doing enough to fight climate change, which leaves me with two questions.

The first, what is sufficient, what is it, how is “sufficient” quantified in a sentence in the opinion of what and who and secondly, most important human rights, Switzerland has not been denounced before an administrative court in which they are violated. a series of legislations, nor is it denounced for going against international treaties that it has signed in relation to climate change such as the Kyoto protocol or is it not denounced for allowing illegal discharges, no, it is condemned for not doing enough and in a Human Rights court human rights that paint human rights in a meteorological issue such as climate change.

This is philosophically very serious and has a perverse reading that few people are going to make and that is to equate humanity with a physical phenomenon such as meteorology, that is, transhumanism, trivialization of the human being, you can only judge the rupture of a human right when it is one human against another human, a government violates Human Rights when freedom is not respected, when plurality is not respected, when it is tortured, when it is mistreated, when it is murdered, but what heat or cold for a while? a meteorological process intervenes a Strasbourg court of human rights, to what level do they lower us humans.

When you equate climate and human in a sentence you are denigrating humans, this is the same as if an animal court judged Human Rights, it is the other way around, the rights of animals are judged by humans because they protect those animals, but equating human being and climate does not seem philosophically dangerous to you, because I insist it is not an administrative court because legislation or a court that judges international treaties has been vulnerable.

Because if we remove all the cars to go on horseback, it would be enough, the horses shit, they emit methane, it would not be enough either, we would also have to remove the horses and we would walk, but walking we breathe is not enough, why don't we they eliminate directly; All of this is very dangerous, dangerous and hypocritical because we are going to see how it is possible that the same authorities, opinion movements, etc. on the one hand are saying that sacrifices are made to your mobility, your consumption, your way of seeing society, of understanding the things to save the planet and those same people who blame you and make you afraid because the temperature may rise one degree in the next 50 years are the same ones who are demanding that you pay your taxes, more weapons, rearm yourself and they are convincing you that you get into a war with Russia.

I don't know why I have misunderstood it and since we are talking about reviving the “Cold War” maybe that is it, you have seen “cold” in one word, oh cold war we are going to promote the Cold War that we cool the planet, maybe that is it and I have not found out; Not the Cold War, the same ones who are making you afraid because the planet is going to end because it rises one degree, they are the same ones who are encouraging you to go to a third world war because Russia is very bad.

We are going to blame the Europeans for being very polluting, but we are going to invite them to get into a war with Russia because of course provoking one of the countries with the most nuclear power in the world is not a risk, it is not a zero risk for the planet. Not that raising the world's temperature by one degree puts it in serious danger of destruction, but a nuclear war is nonsense compared to climate change, right.