+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14088
Total Topics: 268
Most Online Today: 20
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 15
Total: 15

Author Topic: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1  (Read 8589 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31081
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 2
« on: October 23, 2013, 06:01:22 pm »
Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 2

CLICK HERE for Part 1

Leaving the improbably strange hypothesis of bacterial driven evolution, which stands the concept of the purpose of intelligence and toolmaking on its head for a moment, consider human society and sexual dimorphism.


Female and male pheasant


Female Argiope appensa spider is bigger

[
Mallard ducks - The male has the green colored head

Dimorphism just means that, when there are two sexes in a species, they are different in some way. The difference can be size, color, etc.

In humans, as we well know, "mars" and "venus" differences are not just about physical characteristics like body strength and pelvic size. Those hormones affect behavior far removed from mating rituals.

Freud thought EVERYTHING was about sex but most would agree today that we aren't that mindless. Is the aggressive, testosterone driven male human responsible for the mess we have made of things or are both sexes equally culpable? I think both sexes share the blame equally.

Are women superior to men? Would women have, whether driven by their microbial genes or not, somehow avoided pushing the biosphere to the point that doomed themselves and many other species had they been "in charge" instead of men? Of course not! Who, exactly, raised human male children since we've been around? Who trained them in most activities prior to reaching adolescence?

The roles women had in primitive societies were many and varied including some where they ran the show. Women have been just as capable of mass slaughter when leading armies as men, though this has never been the norm. The relationship of mankind to the biosphere has been parasitic but the relationship of the two sexes to each other has been, although certainly asymmetrical in regard to power, strength and dominance, unquestioningly symbiotic.

There are those who equate historical female submission to a form of slavery. This is not now, or ever was, true. Large differences in strength don't just make it easier to lord it over the weaker sex. In a primitive society, these differences make for stable rolls for both sexes.

Consider that Homo sapiens would have died out long ago if both sexes had equal strength. A female bodybuilder injects testosterone into her body to build up muscle. Nature has selected women to be, on the average, physically weaker. And mind you, for most of our existence, it has been ALL ABOUT who is bigger and stronger.

Why hasn't that changed now that, with industrialization and modern weapons, women have the physical ability to assume leadership roles in society that would, theoretically, save us from ourselves due to women's less aggressive nature?

Because they aren't "cursed" with testosterone! Women are every bit as smart as men. The default setting of a human embryo is female. That is the basic template. It's the hormonal changes triggered by the male chromosome that modifies the default female setting. All males are initially females that receive a hormone bath and become males.

The fetus itself, regardless of the fact that it starts out as a female, is a "take no prisoners" parasitic invader. The placenta fools the mother's immune system into not rejecting the foreign body (sometimes that doesn't work and the fetus dies - RH factor problems) even as it strengthens the mother's immune system to protect the fetus and the mother during gestation.

Through the placenta, the fetus sends waste into the mother's bloodstream and takes oxygen and nutrients that it needs, regardless of whether the mother does or doesn't have enough of them. Pregnant women can become anemic or lose too much calcium and be in danger of breaking bones because when the fetus needs something, it just TAKES IT.

If the fetus is male, aggression and territoriality come with the testosterone during and after he grows to manhood. So, the idea that if we could just put all the women in charge and we would have peace and harmony is never going to fly because, as long as testosterone is around, men will prevent it. The enemy is not "HE". The enemy is failure by BOTH sexes in the human power structure to envision environmental collapse from rampant resource extraction.

So, are we doing all this because our microbial DNA just wants to spread and spread and we are really just gut bacteria robots? I don't think so.  Mankind got into trouble with the biosphere when he got carried away with his tool making. To a degree, we appear to be fouling our nest and dooming ourselves to extinction because we quite literally cannot stop (industrially, not physically speaking) "****ting" where we "eat".

The biomass of humans is smaller than that of all the ant species on earth yet they don't have a carbon footprint problem.

We have a serious carbon footprint problem coupled with a lot of biosphere poisoning. The media love to remind us of this. But here is where the "**** where you eat" metaphor breaks down. Carbon footprint is about poison, not feces. Seven billion humans could quite conceivably make excellent use of their humanure to eliminate the need for chemical fertilizers and much of the wasted water used in sewage treatment.

It 's a very convenient dodge to claim the solution to our problem is to reduce the population. The false claim is made that then all those cars and trucks wouldn't ruin the planet and the biosphere could have a chance. That is a "solution" that only solves about 20% of the pollution problem and leaves the real heavyweights (about 80% of the pollution), industry and military operated of, by and for the 1% elite, out. That is where the major carbon footprint IS. For those who are shaking their heads, go look at those U.N. stats on how many people out there are living on 2 dollars a day and tell me THEY are the problem.

They aren't, no matter what Bill Gates says. The combined feces of all the ants and every other life form out there, far, far exceeds how much we defecate. As RE, myself and many others here have correctly pointed out, the people at the top refuse to accept responsibility for their horrendous attack on the biosphere and are trying to shift the blame on the rest of us. Those of us little piggies in the USA and Europe are the favorite whipping BOYS of those who say we 55k or less (median income in the USA at present) share almost as much as the 1% in the pollution blame.

They hasten to add that depopulation, especially in the piggy countries like ours, is rational. I would support it if it was rational but it is irrational because it fails to deal with, and make an example of, the worst offenders FIRST. People will not give up their pickup trucks until Warren Buffett gives up his jets and multiple houses. The fact that a few of us have reduced our carbon footprint voluntarily as an act of conscience does not mean that most aren't still Bernays brainwashed.   
What we need is a detailed map like this one of UK for the USA:




Quote
Experian have found a direct link between wealth and willingness to embrace a green agenda; those most concerned about climate change tend to live in the wealthiest parts of the country.

Poorer and greener

But here's the rub. The company has also found that the richest constituencies... are also the most polluting.2


And that's just the homes. Try adding the carbon footprint piggery these rich have added to their homes with stock portfolios, ownership of retail space, factories, ships, office buildings, jets, etc.The 55K or less crowd have none of these things. At any rate wages don't even begin to tell the real carbon footprint piggery story; the real story is in who owns what. More on this later.

Here's a breakdown of carbon footprint by income decile in Sweden, a country with far less extremes in wealth dstribution than the USA. Notice that the top decile have nearly 6 times the carbon footprint of the lower decile. 3




Quote
The figure illustrates three types of emissions presented by adult equivalents. The direct emissions come from the household’s consumption (the private consumption) of fuel and heating. The indirect emissions come from the production of goods and services in the Swedish private consumption. International indirect emissions come from the production of goods and services consumed in Swedish households, before being imported. All three types of emissions above sum up to the total emissions from private consumption in Sweden.3

In the USA, the per capita CO2 emissions of about 21 metric tonnes is VERY misleading. (This data is about 5 years ol and. as of 2012, is much lower) This paper studies the differences in emissions from state to state without addressing income levels.

Quote
If U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were equal to those of its most populous state, California, global CO2 emissions would fall by 8 percent. If, instead, U.S. per capita emissions equaled those of Texas, the state with the second-largest population, global emissions would increase by 7 percent.

What makes Californians’ emissions so different from those of Texans, and from U.S. average emissions? And are the factors that explain these differences amenable to replication as policy solutions?4

If you live in any one of the following states (or D.C), your per capita CO2 emissions are less than 10 metric tonnes:

NY, DC, OR, CA, RI, WA, VT, NH, AZ, CT. In Vermont, direct residential of about 3 tons is an average. Just one mansion here can equal 4 or five 2,000 sq. ft. houses and the small homes like mine with less than 1,000 sq. ft. are much lower. People like myself, and there are lots of them here, are probably not running a carbon footprint above 3 metric tons due, in addition to having less house to heat, to driving less than 2,000 miles a year.

But what is published is the national 21 metric tons. NY's per capita footprint appears the lowest in the nation at around 7. That's obviously not taking into account the Wall Street Banks and investors in NY that own stock in retail space and just about every other high carbon footprint venture in the USA including weapons contractors. I'll wager NY's would be double AK's 34, the  state with maximum per capita footprint,  if the real estate throughout the country that the banks owned (Bernie Sanders said it was 60% of the country's wealth) was figured in.

Since the study just looks at homes and not the money the rich spend to "green up" their homes with geothermal (remember Bush's ranch?) or PV while they own stock in and support weapons contractors and dirty industries elsewhere, it is expected that the study would come up with this gem:

Quote
The lack of correlation between income per capita and transportation and electricity emission per capita demonstrates that, at least among states of the U.S., there is no rigid relationship between affluence and emissions.10

Similar incomes can be associated with very different levels of emissions. It is possible — as evidenced by the contrast between California and Texas — to enjoy the typical American lifestyle with per capita emissions that are widely divergent from the U.S. mean.4

The above statement is an excellent example of scientific blinders in the service of raw wealth. The hypermobility alone of these rich would skew their footprint up (lots of vehicles of all sizes) if those engaged in this study had bothered to count boats, cars, airplanes, etc. They do, however, provide a sensible explanation of why states like Vermont keep their carbon footprint relatively low:

Quote
Information about policies that have succeeded in reducing emissions in some states should be circulated to the rest of the country. How have some states managed to reduce their emissions well below the national average? In broad strokes, states with low per capita emissions:
" Drive less per person and have, on average, better fuel economy;
" Use less electricity per person in their homes;
" Have higher gasoline and electricity prices;
" Rely more on public transportation; and
" Use less oil for heating and less coal for electricity generation.

What does our analysis say about the difference between per capita emissions in California and Texas? Transportation emissions are almost one and a half times as great in Texas as in California.4

 

WHY don't these carbon footprint researchers look at this kind of data:  ???
Quote
FAA statistics show the number of U.S. business jet flights grew 11 percent in 2010, after plunging 20 percent in 2009. And providers of private jet services are expanding: In March 2011, NetJets (owned by Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway) placed a $2.8 billion order for 50 new Global business jets from Bombardier, with options for 70 more; last fall, it ordered up to 125 Phenom 300s from Embraer—and it bought Marquis Jet, a marketer of private jet cards. Also in March, CitationAir by Cessna added six 604-mph Citation Xs—which it calls the fastest business jet in the sky—to its fleet of 81 jets, targeting “busy executives and business travelers who often need to be in multiple cities within a compressed timeframe,” a spokesman says. XOJET has added to its fleet as well and has hired 45 new pilots.5


Does anybody want to take a stab at what umpteen executive jets used EXCLUSIVELY by the 1% do to the USA carbon footprint? I know a little something about airplanes. I never flew a jet for hire but I flew Piper Navajos for a year or so. Each engine used 18 gallons per HOUR. Now when people start talking about all those J6P pickup trucks out there while ignoring executive jets, I sigh. The carbon footprint of those jets is massive.   

Quote
How much greater are the emissions from executive jets? I am indebted to HalogenGuides Jets, "the insider's guide to private aviation", for doing the stats.
They reviewed 10 popular private jets using emissions stats provided by TerraPass, the offset company used by Chief Executive Air. The planes ranged from the Gulfstream 400, which burns up 32l of fuel a minute and can carry up to 19 passengers, to the Learjet 40XR, which burns more than 13l a minute to carry a maximum of five passengers.

HeliumReport converts this fuel burn into carbon dioxide emissions per hour. If we assume the plane is fully loaded with passengers, they mostly come in at between 200-300kg of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere per passenger per hour. But of course, the purpose of having your own jet is that you are not stuck with silly cost-cutting exercises like filling every seat on the plane.

I know of no analysis of how full private jets normally fly, but let's assume they are mostly half full. That gives emissions per passenger-hour of 400-600kg of carbon dioxide. That's about half a tonne.
How does that compare with a regular commercial flight? For one from London to Paris, which is roughly an hour, TerraPass reckons 59kg per passenger per hour, or little more more than a 10th as much as flying your own, half full, Learjet.

If you are interested in carbon emissions, these numbers are scary. An hour's flight on a private jet will emit more carbon dioxide than most African do in a whole year.6


The  African CO2 footprint referred to is about one metric ton but let's compare it with our "rich" Americans making anywhere from 55k a year on down that only see executive jets in movies.  In 20 hours of of flying, an afterthought for the jet set 1% of the USA, they use up one yearly quota of J6P's  "greedy irresponsible pig" footprint. Now count the executive jets and count the total hours they fly each year and you will absolutely gasp at the carbon footprint the 1% is happily spewing into our biosphere. There are over 10,000 private jets in the USA as of 2008.
Quote
How private jet travel is straining the system, warming the planet, and costing you money.7


And this is JUST THE EXECUTIVE JETS part of their piggery!
And Buffett thinks it's A-OKAY to add more.  >:(


China's per capita carbon footprint, in the meantime, has become greater than that of several U.S. states, including Vermont.
Quote
The latest report shows that in 2011 China's per capita emissions increased 9%, rising to 7.2 metric tons per person. 8




Click here for Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 3 (conclusion and recommendations)

1.   http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/01/who-are-we-really/#comment-464838811
2.   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8393081.stm
3.   http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____104319.aspx
4.  http://www.e3network.org/papers/Why_do_state_emissions_differ_so_widely.pdf
5.   http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/flying-on-private-jets
6.   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/29/private-jets-green
7.   http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/high_flyers
8.   http://www.greendrinkschina.org/news/chinas-per-capita-carbon-emissions-solidly-reach-developed-nation-levels/
9.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
10. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
11. http://green.wikia.com/wiki/Carbon_Footprint_of_American_Cities

« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 06:54:55 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Comic Relief by Surly1
November 17, 2019, 08:14:54 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
November 17, 2019, 07:40:49 am

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 16, 2019, 05:39:56 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
November 16, 2019, 05:29:09 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
November 16, 2019, 04:19:52 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
November 16, 2019, 12:24:41 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
November 16, 2019, 11:55:01 am

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
November 15, 2019, 10:22:11 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
November 15, 2019, 03:00:54 pm

Money by AGelbert
November 15, 2019, 11:39:29 am