Progress studies is not real, by your standard I have a masters in progress studies. It's made up by a guy who made a lot of money from selling a website and a libertarian leaning economist. It's not even prescriptive, so what the world (allegedly) is great, there's no mechanism. Nothing is actionable and it can't be critically reviewed, it's just free market propaganda.

How can you even be an expert you work like 60-70 hours a week with a family?

Just to be clear, you don't see an issue with failing to disclose the person and "field" you are promoting was invented by a sponsor that has no academic rigor or basis behind it who gave you money that you regularly link to, in this 3 year old ourworldindata article? Like if I came to you on an energy project as a thetan specialist to harmonize your energies cause a guy on a blog said so you wouldn't vet it?

That's not a little odd?

>"Tony Morley, Progress Studies fellow, from Ngunnawal, Australia, to write the first optimistic children’s book on progress."

> I receive and have not received any external funding for my work, with the exception of funding raised to support a children's book I'm writing, "Human Progress for Beginners." (Rules won't let me link, but you can Google it)

Yeah that's weird cause you tried to link to a gofundme, but Tyler Cowen, the co-creator of "progress studies" in your Atlantic article awarded you, or someone else with your name, a grant to write a children's book.

Also you are apparently a "fellow" what exactly does that mean?

I could answer what certifications I hold or what I do for a living in one post without reference.

• Is "progress studies" a major or certificate from an accredited educational institution and if so do you hold such qualification?

• If so what is the curriculum and what institution grants such titles?

• Are you paid to promote content such as you have submitted here?

> In the early 2000s the rate at which humans produced these pollutants increased by about 3% a year.

That's a doubling rate of about 24 yeas which is rather insane when you consider the harmful effects and immediacy of climate change. It's perhaps a bit misleading to present percentages here when people are not generally adept at grasping their consequences. Is 3% a lot, or a little? Is 0.5% a good rate, or did we already have too much?

>The amount of energy required to produce a unit of GDP has fallen by 26% since 2000. Unlike in earlier periods of growth, increases in prosperity no longer require a similar rise in global energy use. Slower growth in the use of fossil fuels to supply that energy (especially coal, the dirtiest one) has further helped curb the growth of emissions.

I get the point but this would be more clearly presented in terms of GHG relative to GDP. What's interesting is this shows a slowing rate of decline with the past decade assuming a rather linear trend.

>The second factor concerns emissions due to land-use change. Getting rid of carbon sinks, by cutting down forests for farmland or digging up peatland for fuel, has a big impact on global emissions: a farm absorbs less carbon than does a rainforest. The Global Carbon Project, the outfit that calculates the budget, estimates that deforestation produces about 7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Although the pace of deforestation continues unchanged, reforestation elsewhere has stepped up. New forest growth is absorbing nearly 4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually, up from about 2 gigatonnes in 1990.

This misleading because it represents the harmful affects of deforestation in their direct, one time impact rather than long term ongoing source; for example deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has turned it from a carbon sink into a net producer of carbon (source: The Economist).

Edit: Also this trend in emission rate will likely continue to slow without drastic action as early improvements favor low hanging fruit i.e. we make the easy changes first which boosts the initial impact but overtime more difficult changes are needed to reach required negative emissions.

"I literally can't even" anymore. I always coasted as a hipster on college radio to keep my ear to the ground for fresh tracks and now everything is so mashed up, slowed down, rained on, chilled-out, dubbed, etc. etc... I don't even know.

My algos decided I like this rain version of The Wisp Sings - Winter Aid, which may be slowed, more than the original (first track) and a bunch of others.

I like Mr. Kitty - After Dark, and the other Mr. Kitty - After Dark that's a bit slower and lo-fi. It seemed much simpler when I just enjoyed Perturbator- I Am the Nigh (album full). I don't even know how to process all the different takes.

I remember being able to flex when people where like, "have you heard m83?" and I'm thinking the eponymously named album or a track like M83 - Moonchild.