+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8447
Total Topics: 228
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)  (Read 1625 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2015, 10:25:07 pm »
Alan,
There was a book written in the 1960's titled, "Silent Spring". THAT book predicted an extreme outcome IF we kept using DDT (egg shells weakened and life forms that reproduced by eggs would NOT reproduce) where the birds and many other species would die. BECAUSE of that book, we obtained a lot of environmental law safeguards (that HAVE BEEN mostly REVERSED by a massive corporate lobbying/propaganda effort).

The precautionary principle of science dictated that we STOP using DDT.

The precautionary principle of science dictates that we STOP using fossil fuels. The science is much clearer than it was for DDT!

But the point is, at the time the book was written, MANY PEOPLE said it was "ABSURD" to believe DDT could cause the extinction of several thousand Monotreme species (mammals that lay eggs). They did not want people shouting from the rooftops that:  WE were in danger, along with the Monotremes, because if DDT did that to egg shells, WHAT ELSE MIGHT IT DO?

You and Ashvin provide sad evidence that History repeats itself.  :(
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2015, 10:56:39 pm »
I apologize for the length of this, but agelbert's post that I am responding to was VERY long.

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
You consistently ignore the reality of the tsunami of propaganda out there that tells people everything is hunky dory.
AG, you are not telling the full story.

There exists a well-known and well-documented strong bias of the media for BAD NEWS, disaster news, and the reason is simple: because it has great shock (emotional) value, and people go where their emotions lead them. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the old newspaperman's motto.

Further, over many decades a TON of press has been given to doomsday visions and theories, going back to the overpopulation hype of the 1960s (and even before then), numerous environmental scares of the 70s and beyond, plus of course the Club of Rome thing. All of this was VERY  PROMINENTLY COVERED IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS. And ALL of those doomsday predictions have proven (of course) false -- and this is a point of some significance, I believe. I wrote about this over on DD. I'm sure you saw it.

You might be able to claim, successfully, that particular issues that YOU deem of special import are not being given the attention that they deserve. But you cannot seriously claim that the media is generally Pollyanna-ish or working overtime to "tell people that everything is hunky dory". If anything, they are working overtime to tell people that crime is out of control, natural disasters are on the increase, shady and corrupt behavior is rampant, racial tensions are about to explode, etc., etc., etc.

ASHVIN wrote:
Quote
   I'm not sure about that. Alan specifically said that our real problems are NOT material and rather "spiritual", so I am inclined to believe that he agrees with you and I about the ROOT of our situations.
Just to expand on that for a moment: I think that all the various material problems -- oil/resource shortfalls, environmental problems, etc. -- are solvable, many of them quite easily (others, not so much, but still solvable). What is hard to solve are problems like low intelligence, failure of imagination, inability to see one's own faults, greed, and numerous other things that fall under the general heading of "matters of the spirit". THAT'S where we have very serious problems. Peak oil? NBD! Peak rare earths? NBD! Peak greed? VBD! (Very Big Deal).

ASHVIN wrote:
Quote
This is simple logic - if you yell out that incremental measures are a waste of time and there is a 95% chance of extinction in the next 100 years, people who hear and believe you will stop any "incremental" measures and GIVE UP HOPE.
I agree. This hysterical apocalypticism does nothing to help our cause. It only hurts it. It already HAS hurt it, in a big way. As I wrote back on DD, the denialist/etc. movements were born and raised -- so to say -- amidst apocalyptic/doomer predictions that ALL WERE PROVEN FALSE. Their very denialism is in part a reaction to that. It is a terrible shame, because there ARE very real risks (AGW and etc.) that must urgently be addressed.

ASHVIN WROTE:
Quote
I'd say <1% chance of NTHE in the next 100 years. It's not backed up by anything but feeling and loose speculation.
  This is not being "the lawyer", it is being reasonable, logical and responsible. Reason tells me that it is a FOOL'S errand to assign probabilities to such a major event.
I agree: fool's errand.

ASHVIN WROTE:
Quote
Well this is ridiculous :emthdown:, but unsurprising...
 You guys wanted an excuse to kill the dialogue, and you found it in his "PSA", which was tolerated just fine until you couldn't respond to his substantive points anymore.... Relegating him to the Dungeon is exhibit A of your cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and general unwillingness to entertain anything that doesn't back up Doom on the horizon.
Haha! Yeah, probably. Who knows, who cares? Not worth getting in a twist about. They can have whatever kind of forum they like.

SURLY WROTE:
Quote
Apparently he has taken his fit of pique and gone elsewhere to enlighten the unwashed.
Fit of pique? Try fit of boredom! But yes, gone to elsewhere... to have an intelligent conversation, I hope.  You should consider that having better things to do is not the same as "leaving in a fit of pique".

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
Your response to Surly was way over the top. So, you think this forum is into "newspeak" or is a "propaganda outlet" that overreacts to negative news, retreating into "hysterics"?
I don't know about "newspeak", and I would not call it "propaganda", but the "overreacting to negative news" part is abundantly clear and undeniable. RE appears to LIVE for negative news. It is a sort of paraphilia.

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
Your descent into derision and mockery of my position that we are in danger of extinction is sad. I am not a nervous nelly. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I take it you are talking to Ashvin. Where is his derision and mockery? I would like to see it, just to know where we all stand. Please quote it, or give a link. Thanks. (So far, all I've seen from Ashvin on this is his estimate of ~1% for NTHE. But I did not see anything that I would call derision or mockery.)

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
I totally disagree with your claim that our extinction trajectory, if proven to be factual, is cause for despair.
To clarify: Ashvin did not say that it is GOOD cause for despair. He said that people who hear that kind of talk will tend to react in despair (whether good occasion exists or not). Ashvin wrote: "If you yell out that incremental measures are a waste of time and there is a 95% chance of extinction in the next 100 years, people who hear and believe you will stop any "incremental" measures and GIVE UP HOPE." Ashvin is right. That's what many of them will do -- rightly or wrongly.

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
As to Alan's agreement that the root of the problem is spiritual in nature, I certainly agree. But Alan has ridiculed the faith you and I share in the past.
When did I ridicule your faith? What IS your faith? I know you are a Christian. That's all I know. I generally don't ridicule people's religious convictions -- unless they are so over the top that they deserve ridicule (e.g. some flavors of fundamentalistic abrahamic faiths).

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
Perhaps he is into some Gaia faith but try not to get confused about what Alan means by "spirituality", OKAY?
I see. Perhaps alan is into some flaky Gaia faith, but let's not get confused into thinking that his understanding of spirituality is up to OUR exalted Christian level.  Is that it, AG? If so, too bad for you.

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
This debate cannot address root causes until we are all on the same page about what is actually happening in the physical world of the planetary biosphere. As long as you ascribe extinction warnings to the category of hysterics and propaganda, you will question the credibility of any bit of negative data presented.
I presented this data to Alan at the start of the debate in my forum. I'm waiting for him to answer without mockery or derision.   
What data are you talking about?

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
Extinct life forms aren't coming back, Alan. I don't consider that encouraging, do you?
 WE are killing those animals, not "natural" selection, Alan. Please do NOT bring the fossil fueler argument that, since 99% of all the life forms that have lived on earth have gone extinct, a few thousand more A YEAR is no big deal.
 It's a BIG deal, Alan. We can't bring them back. And we still know very little about what we will miss when they are gone. And hard science has proven that the RATE of extinctions we are witnessing is unprecedented in human history.
I agree. What is your point? What am I supposed to do? It is a VERY BAD thing that these extinctions are happening. What are we supposed to do? Conclude that human extinction is likely?

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
The precautionary principle of science DEMANDS that we do everything we can to prevent pollution or cruelty or greed caused extinctions BECAUSE we are part of this biosphere and we do not fully understand how these life forms fit in to our requirements for species perpetuation.
 We are ignoring that principle.
Well, I have problems with the precautionary principle. Taken too far, it is nihilistic. If you cleave to it excessively, you will be inhibited from doing ANYTHING. I think we need the precautionary principle, but it must be accompanied by a precautionary principle pertaining to the precautionary principle itself.

AGELBERT WROTE:
Quote
Yes, the fine print at the bottom of that graphic says it is an estimate. Do you think the count is "alarmist"? Do you think they are "exaggerating extreme outcomes"?
No, no counts or data pertaining to anything is alarmist. Only interpretations of or extrapolations from data can be alarmist. In other words: the facts are the facts. But what we MAKE of the facts -- how we interpret them, the tales that we spin FROM the facts -- is something else. If observations indicate beyond reasonable doubt that a certain specie of bear has become extinct, I believe it. What is questionable is the implications of that extinction.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 12:56:02 am by alan2102 »

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2015, 11:16:34 pm »
Reply to AGELBERT ONLY:

Quote
if you cannot take the possibility of human extinction seriously, the debate is over before it started.
Depends on what you mean by "seriously". I told you that I thought it was possible, but the probability is very low. I said .001% chance, just as a guess. Does that mean I don't take it seriously?

Quote
Consider this a game of chess. We've got lots of time. Before we discuss solutions. let's see if we can DEFINE what's going on out there and why.
That's why I'm researching at poodwaddle. Government stats on this, that and the other might be a bit gamed, but that's all we have to go on. AGAIN, if you don't find them credible, we cannot debate.
I have no idea what "poodwaddle" is, and you have not said what it is. Government stats are usually reliable, but with exceptions (e.g. inflation!).

Quote
You think you can assume your position is impregnable. What is your evidence?
Why do you think that I assume my position is impregnable? What IS my position? Do you know? Please state it, in your words.

Quote
Tell me about all the bioremediation you have witnessed in China.
I have not witnessed any of it. I have read about it.

Quote
Years ago you posted about all the greening they were involved with. Did you ADD their efforts to your positive view of our future? Probably. That's good. Did you SUBTRACT the degradation of China's biomes from your equation? I hope so. Show me proof that China is more biologically diverse now than it was a mere 30 years ago.
1. It probably is NOT more diverse than 30 years ago. But I don't know that for sure. I'm not sure anyone does, or even that anyone COULD know.

2. Whether or not it is more diverse, even if known, would not give us any final conclusion as to the efficacy of their environmental efforts. The environment is a big thing and a big subject, not reduceable to biodiversity -- important though that may be.

Quote
I don't think it is. I think I can prove it isn't. I'm sticking with China now because you know a lot about China. I do too. And I know quite a bit about the other giant polluter called the USA (with Europe not far behind). I'll get to them later.
You first. Spell out the biosphere math of China for me please. Your optimism must have some basis. If it does, I'll alter my position. If it doesn't I expect you to alter yours.
HOW would I, or anyone, "spell out the biosphere math of China"? What does that even mean?

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2015, 11:28:55 pm »
Reply to AGELBERT ONLY:

Quote
let's try to stay on track, okay? We need to agree on the PHYSICAL state of the biosphere BEFORE we address the reason Homo SAPS are so destructive (i.e. ROOT causes).
Please answer the extinction post. 8)
Do you mean the table you posted of proven animal extinctions? I did respond, above. It was not much of a response, because I don't know what  sort of answer you are looking for. You did not ask me a question; you just presented some data.

I agree that extinctions of animals is a very bad thing, if that is what you were wondering.

Quote
Please tell me what China has done to improve the environment and what it has done to degrade it in the last 30 years.
That's a very big question!

I posted a large volume of material on that subject a few years back on DD. You were present, and commented on it. You could re-read that thread, and you would find it very informative I'm sure. Also, most of the information would still be pertinent, i.e. the passage of a few years would not have changed much.

I have not, over the last couple  years, kept up with the subject very well, except to cut and paste a few things to my files more or less in passing. It has not been my major topic of interest.

You will forgive me if I cannot maintain a goodly level of expertise on that subject while also studying scores of other subjects, working for a living, participating in many different things with different people, maintaining my health, and generally living a life.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2015, 12:52:34 am »
Reply to Agelbert:

Regarding DDT:

1. The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects. In the case of DDT, at the time it was introduced there were almost no effective ways of preventing malaria. DDT was highly effective in some contexts; e.g., wikipedia: "For example, in Sri Lanka, the [DDT] program reduced [malaria] cases from about one million per year before spraying to just 18 in 1963."  In other words, DDT essentially eradicated malaria in Sri Lanka. Is that worth something? Yes, of course it is. It is not worth environmental devastation. But did DDT devastate the environment? No, it did not. Further, other and better ways of preventing malaria came online since that time, and DDT is no longer needed. For all its drawbacks, which are considerable, it is a good thing that DDT is now generally banned.

2. Can you provide evidence that DDT caused the extinction of thousands of species? I cannot find reference to this in standard reference material. The eggshell-thinning effect is mentioned, but it seems that different bird species have different sensitivity to this effect. No extinctions were mentioned.



AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2015, 01:58:25 am »
Alan said, 
Quote
The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects.

By WHO, Alan? By WHO? Answer the QUESTION. Your dancing is going to STOP right now.

ONLY scientists can answer those questions because politicians ARE NOT OBJECTIVE.

DEFINE "desirable effects"!

Are you saying the environmental laws passed because of the influence of the book  titled, "Silent Spring"  WERE NOT justified?

You know EXACTLY where I am going with this. And you DO NOT want to accept the premise that serious warnings of potential extinction by the scientific community are logical and reasonable. So, you begin to hem and haw about the "evidence" of DDT. It was mostly BANNED, pal. So, OBVIOUSLY, we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't banned it. What a breathtakingly irrelevant question!

And what about the increased environmental awareness that book caused. Are you going claim that was an "overreaction"?

You KNOW that if you accept that dire warnings based on science AND the precautionary principle (that does NOT require a lot of dead things proof to be justified, by the way) have a salutary effect in getting society to ACT to improve the environment, then you cannot mock warnings of N.T.H.E. on our present trajectory.

So you want to grasp at a few "DDT ain't that bad" straws. Look it up, pal. School is out on what DDT does. I will not descend into minutiae and hairsplitting. If you think the book "Silent Spring" was "Exaggerating Extreme Outcomes" and therefore a "mistake", go away, NOW.

I just argued the false equivalence you made to Ashvin. It's a propaganda technique. You used it on Ashvin. He bought it. I don't.

I said to Ashvin ,
Quote
Your assertion that a tiny group can "overreact" to a tsunami of propaganda by TPTB to keep people asleep is not a logical statement; it's ridiculous. But it is based on your view that there IS NO massive propaganda effort to put people to sleep (SEE: Endowment bias or Confirmation bias).

Ashvin said,
Quote
No, I do believe there is a massive propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic. Now your tone is dismissive.

I liked the way Alan put it - the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.


That is a contradictory group of statements. I am not being dismissive. I am merely stating the fact that you firmly believe my firm view of a high probability of N.T.H.E. is illogical and unreasonable, even though you haven't heard all the evidence. You accuse me of exaggerating extreme outcomes with insufficient evidence to claim a firm position.

Yet you FIRMLY refuse to take the possibility seriously without evidence. The precautionary principle of science, which you claim to agree with, does not require that level of FIRM proof (that you are demanding is needed) to justify drastic, rather than incremental measures. Do you understand that?

But let us say you have a point and I am "overreacting". The precautionary principle of science DICTATES that the burning of fossil fuels be stopped, like, YESTERDAY. All the evidence is not in. It's an extrapolation, like the decision to pass all those  laws made after "Silent Spring" was published.
 
The laws were a good try. They haven't worked enough. But corporate TOES were stepped on to get those laws passed. The corporations learned the wrong lesson from those laws that cost them some profits.

That's why people like the Koch brothers and MKing do what they do. They have an agenda and they have a LOT of financial backing. Cui bono from branding warnings about N.T.H.E. as hyperbole and sky is falling bull****, HUH? WHO would lose a lot of money if most people listened to Doomer Warnings about N.T.H.E.? Propaganda works. That 's why they finance a tsunami of it.  :evil4:

The statement by Alan about two sides of a counterfeit coin is a false equivalence. You agree that there is a massive propaganda effort to keep people ignorant, materialistic and apathetic. Then you calmly state that a tiny group of awake people, outraged by the environmental degradation unprecedented in human history, evidenced by extinction rates (that are also unprecedented and accelerating, NOT becoming less frequent) are "overreacting"?

What does your coin look like, a cone with a tiny flat point 0.00001% of the size of the base? THAT's a "coin"?

No, that is a false equivalence.

Alan's counterfeit coin.   

The "counterfeit coin" is part of the agnotology MO of the defenders of the status quo. They also make frequent use of the null hypothesis (no harm done  ;)) to defend polluting practices as a cost benefit exercise. I smell you are trying to do that.   

The fossil fuel industry learned it from the tobacco industry. The "there is no scientific evidence of harm" is part and parcel of the null hypothesis mendacity.

You seem to know too well how that propaganda pitch works. I do too. Here's just one of six posts I made on that malicious, but clever, MO.

Quote
This is one of six posts I will make over the next several days on Agnotology as excerpted from the excellent book on this topic that I have been perusing. The purpose is to educate you on how TPTB game us. Feel free to pass these posts on to any naïve friends or family.   People who don't like the mushroom treatment need to know how little access to historical truth and scientifically accurate information we actually have in this country8)



IOW, for centuries, TPTB have had a HABIT of lying both actively and PASSIVELY (keeping information from you!). This has corrupted our culture and impeded scientific progress. It's getting WORSE, not better.   


Agnotology: Part five of six parts


NOTE that YOU and Ashvin make accusations that people who "overreact" prevent progress. I know who REALLY is trying to prevent progress. I think you are preventing progress by your firm belief that drastic measures are not required. I think the fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and chemical profit over planet polluters agree with you.

You still haven't said ZIP about the extinctions. I presented extinctions as evidence of the high probability of N.T.H.E. Your "extinctions are bad" is a non answer. Don't play stupid with me. I'll make it clearer below.

Your posts on China did not  outline the environmental pluses and minuses. So, you have nothing new. I'll move on to the environment in general later.

Is "extinctions are bad - so what?" part of your "cost benefit" exercise too?  What a practical fellow. A little biosphere diversity loss is nothing to get too excited about, right?  After all, the corporate profits are still rolling in, right? It's all about GDP, right?

No, it isn't. It's ONLY about life and death.

SNIPPET:

Quote
THE EXTINCTION CRISIS

It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year.

Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

http://www.biologicaldive...ersity/extinction_crisis/

Yeah, right Alan, I'm just "overreacting" here and you are being "rational". 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

K-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2015, 02:01:36 am »
Quote
Can you provide evidence that DDT caused the extinction of thousands of species?
- by Alan2*

In a short period of time DDT concentrated enough to thin the eggshells of predator species.  Had DDT exposure continued the species affected would have walked down the food chain to omnivorous species.  It was stopped but had it wiped out predator species the natural food chain would have been severely disrupted.  That tens of thousands or more species would have been affected and made extinct is certain.  An ecology student could explain better.

What I am telling you is the logical deduction of things I have read about what DDT was doing to eggshells and I know enough biology to know what an ecology student understands without the detail he or she knows.  DDT concentrates like mercury does now.  Wild mercury that was sequestered when the great coal beds were formed in the Carboniferous Period 359.2 to 299 million years ago is being incessantly released and absorbed into the biosphere every day.



DDT did not cause the extinction of thousands of species because it was legislated out of existence.  Had that not happened collapse of the biosphere could be doing a Full Monty right now.  Millions of species could be going out.  DDT exposure is a well understood problem that was solved.  Fortunately. 

DDT was well understood scientifically and it is a tragedy that science is not respected as it once was when environmental protection was first mandated.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2015, 02:30:10 am »
K-Dog,
Well said.

Alan,
Here's the big picture of what we must do NOW. I maintain that you refuse to see it. I use some humor but this is a matter of life and death, even if you refuse to acknowledge that.

To be read while listening to the "Mission Impossible" theme song: If you choose this misson, you will be in deep doo doo with TPTB. Your life will be in jeopardy and you will never have a job with the fossil fuel Forks. You will lose friends, get defamed, mocked, labeled a whacko and be accused of bogarting threads.

We will deny we gave you this mission.  8) You will either save humanity from itself or die trying.
Push the red button to signal you are accepting this mission and have memorized the program below. The digital recording software and hardware storing the data will be magnetically wiped (We don't use tape recorders to give you mission data any longer. Besides, burning stuff is stupid. ;D ).

Good luck and Go GET EM'!   

That pyramid below is a simplification but it gives you an idea how VITAL the PRODUCERS (the base of the trophic pyramid) are to our existence.


The MASSIVE amount of energy stored in the base from captured sunlight is necessary because energy is LOST as the secondary and tertiary trophic levels EAT the life forms below them.

The BASE does NOT have to be WIPED OUT for Homo SAPS to be TOAST. It MUST be GIGANTIC in order to provide life for the subsequent trophic levels. The INSTANT that BASE CANNOT be several times LARGER in biomass because of what WE are doing to the environment, we, along with lots of other non-producers high up on the pyramid, are on the path to extinction. We ARE THERE.

This is not hard.

1) Set the example of a Frugality is Freedom Minimalist Mindset lifestyle
. BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT! The hippies did that and made the MISTAKE of dropping out. They were supposed to use that very same psychology the propagandists for dirty energy used to turn the masses into piggies. That TOOL is to be found in Maslow's hierarchy. IT is called PEER GROUP ACCEPTANCE. That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.  If THAT history is repeated and pro-renewable energy minimalist mindset people are demonized by TPTB, Homo SAP is history! Now to step 2.

2 Explain the OBVIOUS to the propagandized chumps.

3. Use peer pressure to cajole, coax, mock, lambast, accuse of foot dragging and lack of CFS, suicidal tendencies, being dumb as a post (and so on - you get the idea) fellow Homo SAPS 24/7.

Unless ET and the USAF have a press conference (After all the big oil CEO's commit suicide ) announcing zero point free energy appliances, flying machines and lunch will now be available to every Homo SAP on the planet within a year or so, there is no alternative to a low carbon economy, PERIOD.

The PLAN, if you can call it that, is to RESPECT and CARE FOR THE TROPHIC PYRAMID, especially the BASE.
And give HELL to everyone that won't do that!

This is not hard.



Pictorial lesson plan for informing the uninformed: The "logical" choices presented by the profit over planet evolutionary dead enders to the propagandized chumps:

Short cognitive time horizons are not conducive to Homo SAP species perpetuation.  8)


   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

K-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2015, 11:43:04 am »
Yes, the trophic pyramid is what I was getting at but I did not know what to call it.

Your statement:

"That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.

Your statement is interesting and the cartoon with the businessman makes the connection well.  TPTB have always had it out for anyone who would threaten their exploitation and self enrichment and have even developed their mental illness into a philosophy so they can self-delude themselves into believing their psychopathic way of life is 'right'.  Your insight concerning hippies suggests that the concentration of American media into the hands of a small number of super rich men was inevitable.  TPTB as a collective of super rich men functions much as a living organism does in protecting itself.  Any other way of life but theirs is perceived by them as an infection and threat.  With their massive resources they have now totally dominated the mainstream discussion to maintain their supremacy.  The immune system of the TPTB organism is strong.

There need not have been any recognizable conspiracy to take out the hippies though there were no doubt many TPTB 'sleeper cell' equivalents openly doing exactly that.  Rather the majority of demonization took place much like racism operates in a culture.   People have social needs to group together and without enlightenment there is a natural tendency to demonize outsiders.  A pathetic example of this is a dim witted lower class white man who imagines himself to be a Republican.  How does this happen?  Simply by making the poor man think he is a member of the privileged class without extending the benefits of being privileged.  I said white man but that is not an absolute requirement.  It is simply easier to 'put the con' on someone who already looks like TPTB and thus easier for me to explain.  Once done a poor deluded and fully propagandized sap can even be persuaded to 'die for his country', so strong is the social instinct of man.  Humans are more social than dogs, they are the most social beings on the planet.

Unless we see that we are all in this together long term survival of the human race is going to be impossible.  TPTB exploited the natural tendency of human nature to form groups and exclude others through massive amounts of propaganda all in order to preserve their agenda.  They have even paid people to troll the internet to maintain their position with tax money.

I appreciate your insight regarding the demonization of hippies.



An example of exploitation?  You decide.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2015, 01:04:30 pm »
Quote
Alan said "The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects."
By WHO, Alan? By WHO? Answer the QUESTION.
Society.

Quote
Your dancing is going to STOP right now.
What dancing? I've responded in detail to virtually every single sentence you have written, as you can see from my posts above. I note, meanwhile, that you are not responding to me; ignoring whole posts.

Quote
ONLY scientists can answer those questions because politicians ARE NOT OBJECTIVE.
I agree that the input of scientists is very important. They should have a very promininent place in policy issues. I am not satisfied with their present role. Scientists are not objective, either, but they come a lot closer than politicians.

Quote
DEFINE "desirable effects"!
I made a start in my post about DDT. One million malaria cases PER YEAR in Sri Lanka, prevented by DDT. Would you call that a desirable effect?

Quote
Are you saying the environmental laws passed because of the influence of the book  titled, "Silent Spring"  WERE NOT justified?
I don't know. They probably WERE justified (my gut talking). But I have not studied the specifics, so cannot say with confidence.

Quote
You know EXACTLY where I am going with this. And you DO NOT want to accept the premise that serious warnings of potential extinction by the scientific community are logical and reasonable.
By who in the scientific community? McPherson? His "work" (if you want to call it that) has been deconstructed and is taken seriously by only very few. It is possible that he is right, but it seems to be a very small likelihood.

Quote
So, you begin to hem and haw about the "evidence" of DDT. It was mostly BANNED, pal. So, OBVIOUSLY, we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't banned it. What a breathtakingly irrelevant question!
Actually, although it was banned, there was an "escape clause" in the ban such that under certain conditions it could be used.

I note that it is now being used again in Africa:

Quote
http://www.premiumtimesng...or-malaria-treatment.html
 African countries adopt controversial deadly chemical, DDT, for malaria treatment
 July 17, 2013
 snip
 Nigeria’s Minister of Health, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, during the Abuja meeting, emphasized that the World Health Organization has cleared use of DDT in countries where mosquitoes are resistant to other insecticide, noting that the manner of usage is what matters.
 “Some countries are using them. In the health sector, it’s to be used indoors, not outdoors. It is the Agricultural sector that doesn’t need DDT. We are not here for rhetorics but to seek the way forward and the summit and African Union is primarily for that purpose,” he stated.
 Also, the South African representative reiterated that it is important for all African leaders to eliminate malaria in Africa, thus, queried why DDT comes under attack annually whenever it is raised as a means of eradicating malaria.
 “If we stop using it, we are sentencing our people to death. Every other continent used DDT to eradicate malaria, so why is our turn different in Africa?
 He said that within five years, South African had a 600 per cent increase in malaria rate from 1996 when the country stopped using DDT.
 “We had no choice but revert to it. DDT must remain here until a more effective chemical is discovered. We want to emphasize that it must not be removed from our agreed agenda on how to eradicate malaria in Africa,” he said.

Quote
And what about the increased environmental awareness that book caused. Are you going claim that was an "overreaction"?
Some of it was. Some of it wasn't. It is a complex world we live in. There are reactions to things, and there are overreactions to things. Sometimes you don't know whether or not something is an overreaction until some years down the line (hence your embrace of the precautionary principle -- about which there is much to admire).

Quote
So you want to grasp at a few "DDT ain't that bad" straws. Look it up, pal.
I have, to some extent. DDT is both good and bad, like most things. I would love it if the good that DDT does were being done by something else (non-toxic and benign), so we could cease production and use of DDT forever. That would be a very good thing. But meanwhile, here we are. See above news item on DDT in Africa. Do you have a suggestion for Nigeria’s Minister of Health, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu?  What would you suggest that he do? What would YOU do in his situation? You have many thousands of people dying of a disease that would be prevented by DDT. But you know that DDT is in other ways a very bad thing. What would you do? Seriously. Think about it. There is no easy answer.

Quote
School is out on what DDT does. I will not descend into minutiae and hairsplitting. If you think the book "Silent Spring" was "Exaggerating Extreme Outcomes" and therefore a "mistake", go away, NOW.
Thanks for the invitation. It looks like I'm going to have to do that, for several reasons:

1. First, your tone, your hot-headedness and borderline irrationality, are starting to get to me. I've been patient, carefully and calmly answering virtually every single thing you've written -- but without commensurate emotionality, accusations and so forth. And yet, you still cannot seem to settle down. You cannot seem to respond rationally to what I write.  Your behavior has been shrill, accusatory, short-tempered, rude and unreasonable. I am not offended by this, but I am disappointed. Whatever. I have no big investment in a particular outcome. I was hoping to come here and have a rational discussion, but it looks like that is not in the cards. It is OK. I am OK with reality. It is what it is.

2. Second, I have an extremely busy time coming up the next three weeks. Trip out of town, and employment-related stuff. So much stuff that I cancelled my gym membership for a month last night! (since I will not have time to use it).  For me, that is huge, because the gym is one of my main links to health and sanity. I look forward to getting back to the gym, mid-oct, but meanwhile I'm just too busy. And that includes too busy to write long, thoughtful, detailed replies here. The most I could do would be to stop in every few days and read, maybe post a few lines, something like that.

3. Third, I see that k-dog is in attendance. I came here to get away from people like k-dog, who I do not see as having anything useful to contribute, judging from past behavior.

4. Fourth, it seems that Ashvin is not actively following and responding on this thread, except for one 2-line post. That's important, because Ashvin is -- in my view -- one of the most intelligent and rational folks in this whole crowd. Without him, it feels like the total weight is on me. And given my upcoming life stuff (#2, above), that is way too much of a burden for me. Even if the #2 stuff were not happening, it would be too much for me, because I have a full life and many interests and activities. I cannot justify spending 10 or 15 or more hours per week, ongoing for weeks, engaged in conversation with what I PERCEIVE (maybe wrongly) to be a hotheaded, borderline-hysterical, borderline-irrational guy (see #1, above) (or guyS -- plural -- if the rest of the DD madhouse starts following us over here).

I trust that that explains my situation fully.

................

Good luck, Agelbert. I believe that you are a good and sincere man, your concern for humanity is heartfelt and real, and your work on renewable energy and related matters is admirable.




alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2015, 01:10:00 pm »

PS:

The Dirty F.u.c.k.ing Hippies Were Right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

 :)

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2015, 01:58:44 pm »
PSS: Agelbert wrote:

Quote
Set the example of a Frugality is Freedom Minimalist Mindset lifestyle. BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT! The hippies did that and made the MISTAKE of dropping out. They were supposed to use that very same psychology the propagandists for dirty energy used to turn the masses into piggies. That TOOL is to be found in Maslow's hierarchy. IT is called PEER GROUP ACCEPTANCE. That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.

Very good point! You make a number of very good points, amidst the noise and hand-waving.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2015, 02:09:21 pm »
Sorry Alan, you just provided a slew of non answers. You used "doubt is our product" to obliquely defend incremental measures. But you feel so sure that DDT is saving millions of lives because you read about it. But what about the lives that it kills? When you read about DDT saving millions, you agree heartily. When you read about all the Anti-DDT legislation that saved even more millions, you claim it is doubtful and we are a "complex" society.

Sorry, that is not logical. The claim that DDT saves millions of lives in Africa is scientifically based speculation. The only way they could prove that is by having a control group in the same area in Africa not given having DDT sprayed crops while another group does. The past without DDT is not firm proof. The same applies to the claim that banning DDT saved millions. It's part of the precautionary principle that you do not want to deal with.

And it isn't just McPherson uttering dire warnings, pal. The acceleration in extinctions is not in doubt. Extinction is the topic here, isn't it? Humans are part of the biosphere. Humans need the biosphere to live. Humans are killing part of the biosphere. This is not hard. The word "precautionary" in the precautionary principle is there for a reason. and you have certainly NOT answered my points.

What part of the following do you find doubtful?

Quote
THE EXTINCTION CRISIS

It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year.

Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].

Your "Society" answer for who does the cost benefit analysis is fascinating in it's total dodge of the egregious gaming of government action by polluting corporations. You can agree that butterfly flapping can cause deleterious results but you can't see how the profit over planet polluters can bring about human extinction. That is simply not reasonable on your part. That is willful denial.

Of course I can recommend exactly what course of action for Africa and everybody else out there to take that excludes DDT and all other chemical neurotoxins. But if the proposal is not couched in the form of a real, not hyperbole based, existential threat, you KNOW governments won't act!  See below:

This is what we have to do WORLDWIDE. If we don't, we die.

The bottom line is that humans, although we are tasked as self aware beings with being stewards of those life forms who are not, are a function of the biosphere, just as all the other life forms are.

We have NOT "risen above" the other life forms with our polluting example. The reverse is true. Our science CANNOT replace life forms that go extinct. We can't even make a paramecium! We are STUCK when a large enough percentage of the biosphere we MUST have to survive dies off. And THAT is ALREADY BAKED IN, according to Hansen and thousands of other serious scientists.

We have NOT earned the right to do anything on this biosphere except to obey the rules of planetary biochemistry that our scientists have discovered. We don't do that and we die, period.

So we can sit here and hem and haw about whether this or that system is "doable", "practical" or "too utopian" while we are oh, so cautious in not wanting to tinker with all those "Great traditions" and "individuality" and "freedom" that gave us our present Dystopia. Good luck with that.

I propose that we go from a defunct "carrying Capacity" meme to a "Caring Capacity" meme.

This world view modification is life promoting, instead of death rewarding.

First, we would need to adopt Hansen's "Golden Opportunity" (tax and dividend) on fossil fuels along with the elimination of any and all subsidies and tax deductions for exploration for fossil fuels.

Second, codifying into international law fines and/or imprisonment for biosphere harming activities (e.g. fossil fuel exploration and non-bioremidiated mining) must occur across the board in order to ensure compliance to the Caring Capacity meme.

Third, we adopt the product of a Caring Capacity concept called a modified Borsadi Constant. The modification consists of Biosphere math applied to the basket of commodities Borsadi proposed. The modified Borsadi Constant must be the ONLY LEGAL TENDER in order to ensure compliance to the Caring Capacity meme. Of course, the international community could expand that basket to include other, less known, but important commodities vital to biosphere restoration.

This requires a planetary ecology inventory of the biosphere by objective scientists.


An inventory of the biosphere must be RADICALLY different than those now made by the CIA and all the other profit over planet exploiters that operate on the carrying capacity meme (i.e. ANYTHING we get from the ground that harms the biosphere MORE than nurtures it MUST be considered too expensive to extract, period).

For those that will wail and moan about how we need fossil fuel this and fossil fuel that (pesticides, fertilizers, plastics, etc.) in order to avoid having to cull the human population, I present to you the example of China BEFORE the industrial revolution.

For over 1,000 YEARS they had such a perfectly balanced use of human feces for fertilizing crops, that they obtained a population density FAR above anything any other country in the world has reached as of this date. And they did that WITHOUT warring on other countries (yeah they had internal conflict but nobody's perfect! ) and WITHOUT CAPITALISM several centuries before the industrial revolution.

With the knowledge we now possess, ALL the products we need to thrive can be obtained IN HARMONY with the biosphere. Any population pressure we experience can be solved by GROWING the biosphere onto arid, desolate portions of the globe. There are a LOT of those.

When the limit to THAT is reached within a century or so, we can terraform Mars to give us another 1000 years of growing elbow room. It's a BIG universe out there! The reason more people don't see this is that they are brainwashed to think SCARCITY, SCARCITY and SCARCITY equals VALUE. That's the exploitive, profit over planet mindfork we have been visited with for the benefit of the Gordon Gecko IDIOTS.
 
Here's the CARING CAPACITY CURRENCY part of the proposal:

Present Dystopia
:


The "currency" of Dystopia:


The BorsodI Constant aka "the Exeter experiment "InFLatIon Free Currency (approximately 1971-1974)
United States Constitution forbids the counterfeiting of this nation’s currency, however, it in no way limits the circulation of a completely alternative medium of exchange...
3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency

What MUST we do to have a type of FUNCTIONAL society based on human CARING CAPACITY instead of the exploited biosphere's "carrying capacity"?
We must adopt a currency that reflects REAL VALUE in the biosphere. The use of this currency must nurture LIFE, not reward coercion, greed, war and death.

Ralph Borsodi came up with a local currency called the "CONSTANT".
I like it. With some fine tuning, it would fit the bill for a Green Libertarian Socialist currency that would meet the Caring Capacity requirement to nurture LIFE, not reward coercion, greed, war and death.

SNIPPET:

The first Constants were sold on June 21st 1972. Over a period of about three years, Borsodi presented his ideas to many people who deposited approximately $100,000 in his bank experiment called Arbitrage International and the funds were used to buy the basket of 30 basic commodities on the world market. (Arbitrage International maintained a Luxembourg and a London office, in addition to its temporary headquarters in Exeter, New Hampshire.)

"The value of a Constant was based on that of specific amounts of thirty basic commodities,including gold, silver, iron, aluminum, lead, copper, nickel, tin, zinc, coal, oil, wheat, barley, rice, rye, oats, soya, maize, wool, cotton, cocoa, coffee, copra, hides, jute, rubber, cement, sulphur and sugar, and holders could sell them at any time for the total of whatever the constituents were then worth:


Borsodi’s organisation, Independent Arbitrage International, recalculated the Constant’s underlying value monthly and let the banks know. " People who bought Constants from Borsodi’s organisation at, say, $2.18 a 10-Constant note were surprised later when the bank paid them $2.19 for it" a local newspaperman, Mel

Most, wrote after the experiment had been running for seven months."
"To everybody’s surprise, even including Borsodi, many people bought Constant notes and made deposits in the bank checking account. At the same time Constants began to circulate around the town of Exeter, where restaurants and other businesses accepted them in payment."

The participants in the experiment saw the value of their constant rise 17% in three years. 36 months into the test, "...a constant bought in 1970 can still be traded for exactly one constant’s worth of goods . . . while a dollar will now buy only 85% of what it would purchase three years ago."
3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency

HERE is the typical BALONEY double talk response from the gooberment:
What did the U.S. Treasury Department have to say about the private currency?
A Treasury agent was quoted at the time saying, "We don’t care if he issues pine cones, as long as it is exchangeable for dollars so that transactions can be recorded for tax purposes."

BALONEY!

"Tax purposes" DOES NOT HAVE BEANS to do with it and COERCION to make people accept a worthless fiat currency issued by the "Federal" Reserve has EVERYTHING to do with it. But they don't say that, do they? THE INSTANT people with REAL currency try to PROPERLY value fiat dollars (see USED toilet paper or less), the profit over planet counterfeiters get their family jewels in an uproar.
http://www.createaforum.c...ution/3-170415144817.jpeg

What must be done to avoid Extinction[/b]

Feel free to pass this on with or without attribution. TPTB, not the overwhelming majority of the human biomass, are killing this biosphere. WE HAVE TO STOP THEIR SUICIDAL INSANITY OR WE WILL GO EXTINCT.

NOTE: I wrote above proposal in April of this year. I haven't been invited to the White House.  ;D I didn't really think I would. That is not "despair", pal. That is understanding the reality of the massive denial most Homo SAPS are into about our existential threat form human caused pollution.

Alan,
You seem to be saying the if the odds of N.T.H.E. are high enough, as determined by the scientific community (NOT just McPherson!), that is peddling despair and prevent progress thorough incremental measures. That is not a logical deduction. What the high odds ACTUALLY does, once governments digest the reality of the threat, is justify massive and drastic action to postpone it and possibly eliminate it.

You refuse to see that.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8252
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2015, 02:54:54 pm »
K-Dog said Agelbert,
Quote
I appreciate your insight regarding the demonization of hippies.

 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2015, 05:50:49 pm »
Agelbert wrote:


...............................


I pledge my allegiance
To the Federal Reserve, the CFR and Exxon/Mobil,
And to the Bilderberg Group, for which they stand,
One nation, under plutocracy and the fascist Patriot Act,
with snooping and injustice for all.
Amen.


 :D

(time out for fun this afternoon!)
« Last Edit: September 15, 2015, 07:01:10 pm by AGelbert »

 

+-Recent Topics

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:49:23 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 11:29:07 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 10:01:49 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 05:05:03 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 04:34:29 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 02:51:20 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
December 15, 2017, 01:35:42 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 10:49:12 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 09:32:10 pm

Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life by AGelbert
December 14, 2017, 01:07:22 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial