+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12307
Total Topics: 256
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination  (Read 3637 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
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.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Yeah, right Alan, I'm just "overreacting" here and you are being "rational". 
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

K-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • K-Dog
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: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
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)


   
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

K-Dog

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • K-Dog
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
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.com/news/141150-african-countries-adopt-controversial-deadly-chemical-ddt-for-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

PS:

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

 :)

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
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: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
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.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/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.
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
K-Dog said Agelbert,
Quote
I appreciate your insight regarding the demonization of hippies.

 
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

alan2102

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
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 »

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Sure Alan, it's just "hilarious".  I'm waiting for you to pull out your "counterfeit coin".    

Doubt really is your product, isn't?


The above book, though not part of the book below, is relevant because it details the use of the SAME unethical strategy pioneered by the Tobacco bastards that HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, USED by the dirty energy producers for the last 40 years.  >:(

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

 

I am amazed you don't know what biosphere math is. The short version is that the biosphere operates in a band of temperature, pressure, pH and a trophic (stuff we are nourished by) web of species interconnections. All species have slightly varying requirements, but the bottom line is that they must remain within a "goldilocks" type band to survive extinction.

The stability of the composition of those bands constitutes a plus in biosphere math. The instability born of radical departures from those bands constitutes a negative in biosphere math.

For example, we require a certain population of gut bacteria in a certain proportion of bacterial species. A slight departure will kill us (e. g. E.coli food poisoning) even though we have a lot of the SAME bacteria that will kill us if it spoils food we are about to eat living happily in our intestines extracting vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from the food.

Nature is the same way. You DO NOT have to have this obvious giant threat out there to be in danger of extinction. The biosphere is EXTREMELY fine tuned. Our activities are guaranteeing an unquestionable forced departure from the life giving band of hundreds of thousands of species, including our own.

But I have not been able to communicate to you how truly fragile our existence is. It's a bit ironic, because I'm not going to be here to see the really massive human die offs starting around 2050. But Ashvin will. and if you are young, so will you.

All that said, I do appreciate the fact the you believe I am sincere, and not out to propagandize people for the jollies of scaremongering.

Perhaps after I'm dead, God (or is it the "goddess" to you?  ;)) will task me to sing "Henry the Eighth" (see the movie "Ghost) to Ashvin when the Greenland ice sheet slides into the ocean and the oceans jump 20 feet or so within a few months. That is, right after he starts asking "Who coulda node?".

He was just being prudent about the "proper" application of the precautionary principle, after all...
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
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 bullshit, 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.   

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. 

 
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
I said.
Quote
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?

Alan and Ashvin provide sad evidence that History repeats itself.  :(


Ashvin said,

Quote
Yes, THAT is what the precautionary principle is:

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action"

I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems. In fact, no one has argued that. Once again, you are ascribing this view to us because it makes us seem apathetic and your position more reasonable.

The PP does NOT state that you should ascribe more certainty to an outcome (NTHE) than the evidence warrants, and that is what I am claiming you are doing until you convince me otherwise.

So, the evidence does not "warrant" my premise. Yet I have repeatedly stated that Ashvin does not want to give any importance to the evidence I present.

How about you, Alan? Do you think the deforestation and extinction data (a tiny part of the overall degradation picture) I have so far presented does not "warrant" my premise?

Shall we now dance over to defining what "is" (see Clinton). This is getting absolutely ridiculous in the level of denial. 

But at least Ashvin CLAIMS that (see: "I am not arguing that you need to meet a certain burden of proof for NTHE before denouncing actions which cause environmental problems or promoting drastic actions to combat environmental problems.") that he is not demanding an impossibly high burden of proof.

You, Alan, are. You claim drastic measures are not warranted at all.

I'm not sure I buy Ashvin's assurances about backing drastic measures. Claiming the evidence doesn't warrant my premise while claiming his standard for agreeing with my premise is not high is okay. But WITHOUT telling me what evidence standard he would accept (see: he states he doesn't know that much about climate science and the biosphere = DOUBT) is illogical. It's erring on the side of the incremental measures status quo that I have already proven isn't doing enough.

It's wrong. The precautionary principle requires that, if we are to err, it is on the side of doing more than may be necessary to eliminate the threat of N.T.H.E.

But I know I'm talking to a wall. so it goes.  :(

Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Ashvin,
If you think I cherry pick, rather than summarize, then do the work of going to the links I clearly present to the reader to peruse, rather than throwing out deliberate barbs for the purpose of undermining my credibility.

And asking me for more data to support my views when you have just questioned my methodology for obtaining and publishing data that supports my premise is illogical.

You are not convinced by my stream of posts. You make no effort to connect them together. You continuously avoid putting them all together.  Any detective knows that what appears to be an insignificant clue to a crime, when added to several other of the same nature, constitutes circumstantial evidence. You just flat refuse to do that. 

We can argue until the cows come home if that is, or is not, logical methodology or hairsplitting or endowment/confirmation bias. That just keeps the substance of the data from being discussed.

Sorry pal, this isn't about me or you. You are just trying to make it about me. As Surly said, with some graphics, that's a departure from substance and is off topic.

Ashvin, you can choose to keep all the dots I present totally disconnected in regard to the INCREASE in the probability of N.T.H.E. if you so desire.

Since I am pushing 70, I don't expect to be here when the positive feedback loops are jacking each other up (picture one ping pong ball thrown at a field of mouse traps, each with a single ping pong ball ready to jump when disturbed). My rough estimate is between 2040 and 2050.

You will be there, old chum. I'm trying to enlist your aid to WRITE about the threat, rather than pretend it is "absurd". How will you feel if my warnings turnout to be valid? Will you say it was my fault because I didn't lay down the argument properly in order to convince you? You probably will. Humans have a gift for rationalizing, don't they? You claim I am doing exactly that with my defense of my "overreaction". Perhaps.

But, your argument is weakened by the fact that I am not threatened by N.T.H.E., you are.

The only justification for anyone that is old, like me, that you can logically claim, is that "rooftop yelling alarmists" like to "scare people". That's REALLY bullshit, especially if you ascribe it to someone who has been publishing proposed solutions and pushing various renewable energy technologies consistently.

Here's another DOT, Ashvin.

The following estimate of deaths caused by pollution is overly conservative by several orders of magnitude. I reason that it is overly conservative, and certainly not alarmist, by the fact that it leaves out mortality estimates of all other life forms in the biosphere that are affected equally by the deleterious impact of pollution. It also leaves out several other types of pollution caused positive feedback loop effects such as species viability reduction from radionuclide caused degraded DNA, habitat loss from desertification and deforestation, ocean acidification and Carbon Dioxide atmospheric increase, among several other mortality increasing effects now present in our biosphere.

I submit this news as part of the evidence that incremental measures are not enough to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E. and that only massive, government sponsored, drastic measures to stop all sources of pollutants NOW will reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.

Air pollution could kill 6.6 million people a year by 2050


Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday.

POSTED: 17 Sep 2015 01:40

LONDON: Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday (Sep 16).

In a study published in the journal Nature, they found that outdoor air pollution already kills about 3.3 million people a year worldwide. The majority of those deaths are in Asia where residential energy emissions, such as those from heating and cooking, have a major impact.

And that toll could double over the next 35 years, the researchers warned, unless clean-up measures are taken.

"This is an astounding number," said Jos Lelieveld of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, who led the research. "In some countries air pollution is actually a leading cause of death, and in many countries it is a major issue."
Air pollution deaths are most commonly from heart disease, strokes or a lung disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is also linked to deaths from lung cancer and acute respiratory infections.

Calculating the health and mortality effects of outdoor air pollution on a global scale is not easy, partly because air quality is not monitored in every region and the toxicity of particles varies depending on their source.

So for this study, Lelieveld's team combined a global atmospheric chemistry model with population data and health statistics to estimate the relative contribution of different kinds of outdoor air pollution, mainly from so-called fine particulate matter, to premature deaths.

Their results show that in India and China, for example, emissions from heating and cooking, have the largest death toll, while in much of the United States and a few other countries, emissions from traffic and power generation are crucial.

In the eastern United States and in Europe, Russia and East Asia, agricultural emissions are the biggest source of the kind of fine particulate matter that gets into people's lungs, causing illness, disability and death.

Oliver Wild, an atmospheric scientist at Britain's Lancaster University, said the study "really brings home the need for air quality controls", particularly in heavily populated parts of Asia.
- Reuters

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/air-pollution-could-kill/2131586.html

Agelbert NOTE: For anyone that has the intestinal fortitude to get the big picture, though it is still a somewhat conservative one since it is based on government published stats, just go to poodwaddle.

Here's the clock running on global warming. I don't see the pollution picture improving. I don't see the pollution output slowing down. But Alan thinks I am "misinterpreting" the data  ::). So it goes.

You can adjust the clock for rate per hour, week, and so on. I have it set at "YEAR TO DATE". I find that to be less alarming to view and gives me a better sense of reality.

Global Warming Clock - CO2 Emissions (MT)



« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 04:08:29 pm by AGelbert »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23039
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
I present the following short video as additional scientific evidence that the precautionary principle demands we engage in drastic and massive efforts immediately to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.:

https://youtu.be/_tVxloCKJN0

A brief explanation of why positive feedback loops are uncontrollable, once they start. Incremental measures will not stop positive feedback loops from starting. Therefore, incremental measures will not work to reduce the high probability of N.T.H.E. from a multiplicity of positive feedback loops. This is why immediate and drastic action is warranted now.
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

 

+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
June 18, 2019, 06:11:38 am

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 08:24:54 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 07:32:37 pm

911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP? by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 06:11:27 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 02:22:44 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 17, 2019, 02:15:11 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 06:56:58 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 06:47:39 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 15, 2019, 06:03:33 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
June 15, 2019, 05:21:44 pm