I didn't know where to categorize this. It's not current, kinda politics, kinda tech, kinda a lot of things, but mostly I guess, I was just freaked out and wanted to share/discuss.

I read about this guy 40-50 years ago in The Readers Digest, have never heard anything about him since then, until the other day, a forum chat reminded me and I went rabbit-holing...

John Aristotle Phillips did an independent research project for his Physics degree at Princeton, on how to build a simple nuclear explosive device, including explicit instructions on how and why and etc. His larger goal was to help stop nuclear material proliferation by showing that there were no "secrets" left, no tech hurdles for anyone with a brain, except that of actually acquiring weapons-grade material.

His advisor was no less than Freeman Dyson, who gave him an 'A' and then immediately pulled the paper out of circulation. A couple months later, the Pakistani govt called Phillips, asking to buy a copy of his paper.

So, that's the background. It was his claim to fame back in the '70s.

From there, he went into politics, and etc etc, long story short, he's a top data broker. For decades now, he has been the CEO of one of the biggest US data trawling corporations, holding detailed personal info on at least 175M Americans (as of 2007 - doubtless, it's more today), which they use to help get politicians elected.

"Aristotle has served every occupant of the White House since Ronald Reagan, and consults for several top political action committees."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Aristotle_Phillips#Aristotle,_Inc.

Perhaps unsurprisingly for someone who's devoted his life to gathering info about other people, there doesn't seem to be all that much out there about him or his company.

So, my gut tells me he has become "a bad guy", just my automatic reaction to anyone who deals in this field ... But, IDK, bigger picture is just, I don't know how to process this info. Maybe there's nothing to process, it is what it is.

IDK. Just looking for other people's perspectives, I guess.

Long ago, Cree leader Captain Swan visited the Athabasca area. In 1715, he described a scene to Hudson’s Bay Company fur trader James Knight: “... there is a Certain Gum or pitch that runs down the river in such abundance that [Indians] cannot land but at certain places.” This was the first written reference to bitumen in Canada. Bitumen forms when organic matter is buried and subjected to heat and pressure over geological timescales. That organic matter was primarily algae and plants, which had sequestered carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, thereby locking CO₂ in place, significantly reducing atmospheric CO₂ levels, and helping sustain all aerobic life.

In 1859, John Tyndall explained how atmospheric gases absorb heat from the sun as infrared radiation. His paper details an early understanding of the greenhouse effect. Scientists have long since linked CO₂ emissions—burning refined bitumen and coal—to changing Earth’s climate. A 1912 Popular Mechanics article states, “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2 billion tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and raise its temperature.” A century on, we’re burning 500% more fossil fuels.

Wishful thoughts will not prevent Earth’s global average temperature from increasing as we combust fossil fuels back into atmospheric CO₂. And while our generation reaps the rewards of inexpensive energy, our grandchildren will face the consequences of repaying this debt. A debt undermining the ancient Haudenosaunee philosophy that today’s decisions should result in a sustainable world seven generations from now.

Building a better world for our children requires energy—yet doing so by burning fossil fuels to the point of climate destabilization twists irony into generational betrayal far removed from sustainability.

In a 2013 experiment, University of Berkeley researchers found that breathing in a CO₂ concentration of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) indoors causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity; at 2,500 ppm, initiative and strategic thinking declined to a dysfunctional level, which has since been corroborated by other researchers, including a 2023 meta-analysis on the short-term exposure to indoor CO₂ levels versus cognitive task performance. These cognitive effects become particularly concerning when viewed against atmospheric trends. On June 2, 2025, atmospheric CO₂ surpassed 429 ppm, a significant increase from the 318 ppm measured at Mauna Loa on June 15, 1959.

https://i.ibb.co/yFcXJqCy/graph.png

The graph illustrates a troubling acceleration in CO₂ emissions. At the current growth rate of 3.8 ppm per year, atmospheric CO₂ could reach 1,000 ppm in six generations (150 years). A 2021 study published in Nature emphasized the urgent need for action, stating that global oil and gas production must decline by 3% annually until 2050. Moreover, to limit warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels (1850–1900), an additional 25% of oil reserves must remain untouched.

Against this backdrop, political leaders advocate for increased fossil fuel extraction. Danielle Smith wants to unlock Alberta’s “$14 trillion in oil wealth” to “benefit millions of Canadians for generations.”

Short-term economic benefits derived from resource exploitation have repeatedly led to gradual, often unheeded, environmental degradation. This pattern repeatedly culminated in ecological and economic crashes, devastating the very communities who initially profited. Notable cases include Mesopotamian salinization, the Classic Maya collapse, the Ancestral Puebloan collapse, Norse Greenland settlements, Easter Island’s deforestation, the Dust Bowl, the Aral Sea’s desiccation, and the Grand Banks cod collapse. While some nations have sustainably managed resource wealth, the immediate economic pressures and political incentives that drive extraction often overshadow long-term planning.

The question is not: “How many Canadian generations will benefit?”

The question is: “How many generations will suffer, globally?”

Will we learn from history? Will we set an example for the next seven generations?

Or will we build more oil and gas pipelines, condemning our descendants to an unsustainable future?

Hereby released into the public domain. Feel free to adapt, correct, and send to representatives.