Solarpunk

Neo · 2024-03-07 05:16

>>78423 >that solar panels require extraordinary amounts of fossil fuels It does. More exactly, it don't have to but in the current market, panels come from China and the energy used to create them mostly come from unfiltered coal. If you buy photovoltaic panels to power your house, there is a good chance that you pollute more than the guy who use the energy made by the gas power plant. > the few rare materials in them can be recycled Are they? >what a fuarrrking dynamo is and what is is made of Dynamos are direct current generators, wind turbines are asynchronous generators. The problems with wind turbines is the massive concrete block in the ground that mean that plot of land won't be usable for anything after the life of the turbine and the fact that you can't do anything with the parts made of composite materials, you have to dig a big hole and hide them somewhere. If you accept to have a surface of land that won't be usable anymore and trash that will stay underground forever, you might as well go nuclear. It's much cheaper and you don't need to build a gas power plant as a backup. >my favorite is when they imply that electric vehicles are less energy-efficient that internal combustion cars. Once you take into account that you need to burn fossil fuel to produce the electricity that power them, and then transform and move it and transform it again, yeah. You are not going to have the efficiency you have when you burn diesel yourself. When is propelled by nuclear or renewable, the notion of efficiency become blurred because you can't use that energy directly on your car.

Unknown · 2024-03-07 13:08

>>78440 you are literally wrong in all your points. the energy required to produce the panel is less than the energy produced by the panel. you could burn fuarrrking crude and coal to produce them and because of the difference you would still pollute less than if you used natural gas to generate the same amount of power >composite materials literally fiberglass >Once you take into account that you need to burn fossil fuel to produce the electricity that's exactly what I meant you absolute moron. burning the diesel yourself is so wasteful and inefficient that even if you produce the electricity burning fuel in a power station, even then the electric car is more efficient. the small engine in your car wastes way more energy (as heat, for example) than the grid and battery loss of EVs

Debbie Charteris · 2024-03-07 13:16

in the average car engine, 70% of the energy from combustion goes to radiation (heat), and from the remaining 30% that goes to actually moving the car, you still lose around 10% to the alternator (because you need a cooling system, a starter, spark plugs if you use gas, etc.) and mechanical friction. even with all the grid loses, the ev is still more efficient because thermoelectric plants and the electrical grid only waste around 50% of the energy as heat, the ev only loses 10% of the remaining (so around 5% of the total) energy during charging, and most of the drive-train losses can be recuperated by regenerative braking. even if you lose another 5% to the lights and all the other equipment, it still way more energy efficient than the ice car you literally don't know what you are talking about. want to prove me wrong? post how much energy you need to produce a 60-cells panel, the emissions for that, the amount of power the panel would be expected to produce, and the emissions if you tried to generate that with gas

Masami Eiri · 2024-03-07 16:08

>>78451 Okay, it does not change the fact that photovoltaic panels you find on the market mostly come from China and are made at a great grey cost. It could be done cleanly, but the people who want you to pay more taxes and to have less rights don't give a damn about the planet. They only care about the power they have on you, that's why there isn't a single plan to get the production made in Europe or the US. If you use your diesel engine near it's cruise RPM, you have about 40% of the energy of the fuel converted in kinetic energy. >Modern diesel engines are highly efficient and achieve BTE values of over 50%. Industrial scale power plants have approximately the same efficiency. https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/ So, if you count the 20% loss in the high voltage lines, the efficiency of the various transformations, the energy lost in the battery and the efficiency of the conversion back to an alternative power and then the efficiency of the electrical motor, then I am sorry to inform you that trashing your 5 year old diesel car for a $40k electric one wasn't a great move for the planet. >>78453 >post how much energy you need to produce a 60-cells panel, the emissions for that, the amount of power the panel would be expected to produce, and the emissions if you tried to generate that with gas Okay, I will give you 10 minutes of my life. >It takes about 200kWh of energy to make a single 100-watt solar panel. Assuming 6 hours of effective sunlight per day, once the panel get old and ineffective after 15 years, you have produced 3,2Mwh. You need to store it and then to convert it. I will give you a 90% efficiency there. Coal produce around 2 lbs of CO² per kWh. That's 400 pounds of CO² for your panel, or 0.138 lbs of CO² per kWh for the energy the panel make. Gas is around one, so you were right and I was wrong. I still want to point out that nuclear is at 0,026.

Unknown · 2024-03-07 16:16

>Was trying to get into the social/political theory of the Solarpunk culture What? There isnt any. There isnt any culture either. Its just an aesthetic. You seem like you've been lead astray. Solarpunk is like steampunk, its just an aesthetic. They can have an adhoc rationale after the fact, but the point of these is not to push any kind of culture or change or message. The only *punk that really got close to that is Cyberpunk and even that is debatable as it is merely a science fiction genre that also hinges on aesthetic. I think if you're trying to find what possible futures could be, you should step out of science fiction and into the realms of philosophy and political theory.

Armitage · 2024-03-07 18:24

>>78271 >I was just taken back by the descriptions of borderline marxist doctrine. Marx took a lot from Anarchist writers in his writing while also criticizing them for some things and Anarchism is largely what is the political philosophical view behind cyberpunk and solar punk. This is why the similarities.

Rick Deckard · 2024-03-08 03:22

>>78459 30% (and increasing) of the grid in china are renewables. and you should know they are one of the few countries expanding their nuclear sector. the people that polluted your brain with false information about green energies are literally lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry >when I like something I use the optimum, when I don't, I use the average the majority of people in the world, specially in the developed countries, live in, and move within, cities. even 30% average efficiency is an extremely generous estimation. the power line loss was included in my estimation - even then the centralized power plant is way more efficient than small individual engines (that, besides being inefficient to begin with, operate in sub-optimal conditions). not to mention that around 21% of the grid in the united states and europe are renewables in other words, the 30% average efficiency becomes ~20% when you take into account mechanical losses (in a city you are constantly braking and driving at lower rpm), the alternator, and so on in an ev, even after line, battery losses, and miscellaneous electrical equipment, you have 40% average efficiency. ev electric motors have above 90% efficiency, so you are left with (in the worst case scenario) ~36% which means that even if the grid was 100% fossil fuels, you would still produce less emissions to travel the same distance then you claim that solar panels produce only 200kwh annually and last 15 years, which is false. modern ones last ~25 years and will produce around 700 kwh per year under the circumstances you describe. in 20 years they will still produce ~540 kwh/year. the emissions number is almost an order of magnitude lower than what you posted

Joey · 2024-03-09 10:00

>>78536 I live in France. Our grid is already 90% CO2free. Barrages and nuclear, mostly. Yes, we are told we must invest billions in solar panels and wind turbine and we make the nuclear power plants produce less when solar and wind work. In Finland, they made their EPR run at half its capacity so renewable would still be economically viable. In Germany they simply trashed their entire nuclear industry. If the goal was to save the world, as we have been told it is, none of that would happen. As for China, they are smart enough to not place all their eggs in the same basket. They diversify their energy production but have no concern about the climate. Their CO2 emissions double every few years. And 75% of their renewable is hydro. >you would still produce less emissions to travel the same distance This isn't a debate about efficiency anymore? Good. Hydrogen can be made entirely of renewable since you can easily modulate your consumption of electricity. Hydrogen cars win the debate. Now, a few points. Diesel power plants don't use a turbine. Gas power plants do and it's why make them much more efficient than what you can have at home. Diesel power plants are basically boat motors and an alternator. Driving at lower RPM only exist when you are stuck into traffic. You have a gearbox for a reason. Assuming than an entire third of the energy is lost in the brake is insane. My experience make me say it's around one %. Use a car where cars are the best tool, not downtown. The numbers you use don't reflect reality. Modern solar panels are guaranteed to work for 25 year. Read the fine print and you will see it only says it will still produce, not how much. A 100W panel that produce 700kWh per year would need to be at 100% of its capacity 19 hours a day.

Tank · 2024-03-09 10:35

Wind energy is such a scam. People got already electronics fried because strong wind put too much into the grid. And the kicker is gov said nobody is responsible though soykaf pay for damage yourself. And they took 25 birds from protected endangered species list because otherwise they would have to stop building wind as they get destroyed by them.

Tank · 2024-03-13 13:49

>>78598 the average 60-cells panel I mentioned produces around 300w. even after 20 years it will still produce ~240w >have no concern about the climate. per capita they produce the same emissions as germany. still above the global median but nonetheless impressive considering they are the country that actually produces physical products and their infrastructure is relatively underdeveloped. solar production alone is expected to outgrow energy demand before the end of this year >This isn't a debate about efficiency anymore? if we are talking about energy and fossil fuels, movement -> energy, energy -> emissions, therefore, movement -> emissions. besides, do I have to quote your messages talking about the environment and arguing about coal? trying to deflect like this doesn't help whatever point you are trying to make now (I legit can't tell) >ice cars produce less emissions that evs >well, maybe not but if your grid is 100% fossil fuels >and you don't live in a city >and you use a diesel engine >and ... I want to make this clear, nobody is concerned about the abstract concept of "the environment" - I thought this was obvious but when someone says "the environment", what they are concerned about is the environment becoming increasingly more adverse to (1) our current lifestyle and (2) human life in general

Junichi Fujiwara · 2024-04-11 06:44

>>78190 The social/political side of solarpunk is heavily influenced by Murray Bookchin, you can start there.

Aristóteles Amadópulus · 2024-04-12 07:47

>>79657 thanks. ill add that to our reading list

Nanashi No Gombe · 2024-04-12 11:32

>>we are told we must invest billions in solar panels and wind turbine and we make the nuclear power plants produce less when solar and wind work. Wind and solar is propaganda from the oil companies. It is so expensive and intermittent that every country still needs gas and coal plants for backups. Carbon tax will also be a boon for oil companies because then they can sell less at a higher cost, less work more profit. People simply don't understand who controls and media and politicians. Protesting to replace nuclear with solar is not fighting the billionaires, it is exactly what the billionaires want.

XERXES · 2024-04-12 12:14

>>78190 That image does not show the giant mining pits from harvesting all those rare earth minerals or the pollution from refineries in China that utilize American and Canadian coal. Then the solar panels would get shipped to the USA and Canada to make pretentious glitterboys feel good about themselves. Just re-allocate resources to planetary defense and the growing of humans, animals, and plants from microbes on a terraformed planet (rebirth of humanity). Most of domestic, civil life should be mostly low-tech.

Dox · 2024-04-12 16:49

Solarpunk is just the leftist version of those tradlarp "return to nature" memes you see. It's a fantasy aesthetic that political theories use, not a political theory itself.

Tequila · 2024-04-12 17:03

>>79687 In the US, the biggest trend in energy production in the past twenty-odd years is that coal is being replaced with natural gas, which is a straightforwardly good thing. Nuclear plants aren't being shut down to make room for solar or wind farms. See chart: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vtvv&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.TSN-US-99.Q&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.Q~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.Q&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.Q&freq=Q&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin= In any case, we have huge grids, if you can tolerate some line losses (which you can) it's pretty much guaranteed that the sun is shining or the wind is blowing somewhere. Obviously solar & wind can't be used for reliable base loads but they are not so mercurial that they are useless. They're also substantially less dirty processes than coal and probably also natural gas, even if you include the end-to-end process of mining it from the ground and then retiring it (you'd need to do the same for coal and natural gas too, and coal mining is famously destructive even compared to lithium mining). In hot sunny places where solar farms tend to be, you have the added benefit that the day that everyone is using their AC is probably the same day that your solar farm operates at near its maximum production capacity. So, I think poo-pooing wind and solar like so many amateur energyheads like to do is a little unwarranted. Sure, they are overhyped technologies and you can't go 100% solar or 100% wind and have the industrial capacity to sustain the comfort that first-worlders have come to consider a human right, and nuclear power is a great technology that doesn't deserve its bad reputation, but they're also great technologies, substantially cheaper and easier to black start than almost anything else, and coal is a garbage fuel that we should stop using wherever we can.

Koos van der Merwe · 2024-04-13 15:38

>>79701 That doesn't make any sense since tradlarp is already the right wing rip-off of the left/hippie back to the land movement. Solarpunk is the escapist counterpoint to cyberpunk (and cyberpunk was left wing to begin with too by the way).

XERXES · 2024-04-13 16:06

>>79701 >>79724 Politics obsession. Solarpunk came simply out of the optimist take on the future which predates pessimist outlooks. I can't date it exactly but roughly 50-70s had more cool "we fixed everything" future concepts while 90s+ went full alright everything going to soykaf future is gonna suck. Though its also not that clean because these optimist takes were often also part of "hubris destroys paradise" stories were the utopia goes wrong. That design was also used in atlantis/mu concepts of a prior civ that solved everything and gets then destroyed by catastrophe. also fuarrrk "make a better post" people use meme words cause they describe accurately what they mean without writing prosa.

Lord Nikon · 2024-04-13 18:57

>>79724 Solarpunk isn't at all a continuation of the hippie 'back to the land' movement, though. And the hippies didn't invent that idea either; the aesthetic of agrarian paradise has been used by many many many political movements in the past three centuries. Probably because industrial society is anxiety-inducing as fuarrk. Solarpunk, being relatively new, is informed by exactly the same recent trends and zeitgeist as tradlarp memes are. >>79726 Aesthetics are highly political. They are the primary vehicle for ideology. They are most of what separates an ideology from just a policy platform. So, I think it is very much worth discussing the political context of an aesthetic. And solarpunk is certainly an aesthetic, not really an outlook. >Solarpunk came simply out of the optimist take on the future which predates pessimist outlooks. It really didn't. It was a reaction to cyberpunk. As the poster above mentioned, cyberpunk itself is quite political, it is pretty much a direct criticism of neoliberalism. Solarpunk is the mirror image of cyberpunk. It is the aesthetic where you ask "what if we won?". 'we' being left-wing greens.

Drifter · 2024-04-13 22:00

>>79684 I recently came across this website in twitter with sort texts to get into the communalist mindset https://communalistlibrary.carrd.co/

SHODAN · 2024-04-14 07:52

>literally >muh miyazaki Solarpunk (as an ideology) appears to be just a personal larp of soy infested glitterboys who wish we could power the world with photovoltaics, windmills and fuzzy feelings only. Hardly a "culture" so to speak. >30% (and increasing) of the grid in china are renewables Where did you get that number from? What does that mean? You'd see those fields of solar panels on satellite images at the current efficiency rate and energy requirements those would have to cover. And considering the insane cost in money and resources this would be untypical since mainland China tends to go for whatever is the cheapest and efficient in a bang per buck sense. While not giving a damn about their own people, let alone the environment. We're talking about a country which conducts massive scale dragnet fishing in open seas as part of an economic warfare against foreign fishing industries. You can in fact see those "floating cities" on NASA's web page. They're using nuclear and burn russian gas and coal while maybe getting some from turbine energy from their dams like the Three Georges one which is one of their many high maintenance mega projects and speculated to break every year. >21% of the grid in the united states and europe are renewables If that's already 21% then I've seen what that looks like. I drive past fields full of wind and photovoltaic generators. There's rarely a landscape view left without any of that. Yet it did not bring the wondrous future we were promised. Instead we went back to burning coal to offset the inefficiencies. Have to use fossil oil to power the excavation and extraction processes of the rare earths needed for the parts and also to grease them. Funny how people who act all snarky and smug do not understand that heavy moving parts wear themselves down and you need masses of oil to mitigate that. And then also end up with piles of massive expensive parts which are in fact not recyclable. Not the panels, not the turbine wings not the lithium cells. You just have to bury then somewhere like an other anon pointed out. It's a green washed lie that we fell for, there's no point in forcing your whims to be true and basing your political views on an aesthetic is just plain stupid. Like we could discover how to harness the wiggle of quantum particles or something or it turns out that Tesla was right about charging our ionosphere so we wouldn't need any batteries ever. Then what? Becoming a hipster with your own little "balcony farm"? Or not understanding the true cost behind driving your faggy e-car who's besmirching the same man after being named after him while using a good chunk of the energy just to drag the heavy battery around which you gonna have to toss in a few years? Like why do we not power freight barges with solar? Most of the power consumption is in the industrial sector which relies on means which are reliable and cost efficient and thus far only diesel, gas and nuclear sufficed for that. >we are told we must invest billions in solar panels and wind turbine and we make the nuclear power plants produce less when solar and wind work As someone from Germany I'll advise you to think carefully about doing that. Deindustrialization is not the promised path to saving the environment as people will burn libraries if they have to stay warm. It's either betting on technological progress to offset our stupidity or going full malthusean. Anything else is just half assing it. >Modern solar panels are guaranteed to work for 25 year. Hello hail storm after 2 years. >per capita they produce the same emissions as germany. still above the global median but nonetheless impressive considering they are the country that actually produces physical products and their infrastructure is relatively underdeveloped. solar production alone is expected to outgrow energy demand before the end of this year Have you seen how most mainland chinese live? Especially rural it's all bare bones. They're essentially industrial serves under that communist party of theirs operating the machines to sell megatons of cheap plastic crap to the world while getting pennies for it. While Germany also produces physical products, or at least did. While you do not see any "made in Germany" printed on consumer goods any more, up until the recent deindustrialization campaign plenty of industrial machinery was produced there. >Nuclear plants aren't being shut down to make room for solar or wind farms Laughs in kraut. >we have huge grids, if you can tolerate some line losses (which you can) it's pretty much guaranteed that the sun is shining or the wind is blowing somewhere. Again no conception of how things work outside of abstract concepts. Look at countries with the most time zones like the US or Russia. They basically need to have a "wave" going from the east to the west of their national grid to cover those consumption peaks. It's not just this drop in the ocean kind of thing that distributes evenly but has to be a tightly controlled stream. >That doesn't make any sense since tradlarp is already the right wing rip-off Solarpunk is already dead in the water if it relies on this rightwing bad, leftwing good team sports nonsense. Even the NSDAP had their Tier- and Naturschutz. >It is the aesthetic where you ask "what if we won?". 'we' being left-wing greens. But that's the thing. "Greens" already did and the results of that have been detrimental, stupid and enraging. Possibly being the reason for a future political backlash. >>78410 I think it would be something like a single or collection of "human habitats", occupied by a bunch of same looking bald shaven mulattos living in weird organic yet brutalist style quarters like that one mansion that Kanye commissioned from some crazy architect. Think like Brave New World, Aeon Flux, THX 1138. >As an anarchist community, Lawlessness between the subjects, harsh punishments for offending against the ruling class or entity. >solarpunk strives for a post-scarcity, Means of individuals reduced to the bare minimum, rations and enforced shortages >post-capitalist society Trade is forbidden, you better keep what has been allotted to you and exchanging goods disturbs the grand plan of the architect, the party or whatever. >devoid of hierarchy and domination. By means of only a single central entity getting to do that. >As an ecological community, solarpunk strives for local, self-sufficient, and sustainable living where both the human and non-human flourish. Regular humans are just as much cattle as other animals and the gruel, bug sauce and soylent green is produced on site. That and also a bunch of Budhism and cult worship sprinkled in. With people living like monks with all personal ambition tortured or bred out of them. With only docility and obedience left in them. How does that sound for a compelling dystopian setting?

Masami Eiri · 2024-04-14 08:18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbECmVdyWlQ this is a solid vid on going solar based on the case of hawai

Marly Krushkhova · 2024-04-14 19:02

>>>79745 Oh look, a technocapital corpodrone! Pay attention lains, this is an example of indoctrination at work! Notice their criticisms are founded on strawmen and half truths! They have deluded themselves into thinking they might benefit from the present system, so they feel threatened at the prospect of people trying to escape it. They're like a slave trying to justify slavery in the hope that someday they can be the one with the whip. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

Judge Fang · 2024-04-14 20:32

>>79727 >Solarpunk isn't at all a continuation of the hippie 'back to the land' movement, Congratulations. That is not what I said.

Nanashi No Gombe · 2024-04-19 22:57

Is the pic related the solarpunk you want us to have? I have nothing against having solar panels or alternative energy solutions that give us fresh air, but if you tend to exaggerate this you'd be like a Great Reset fan who thinks Schwab's saving the world. They tell us carbon soykaf when Earth already regenerates it to oxygen. You see, I believe climate change's really a myth, not saying that waste and air pollution are nothing, but really climate change claims are based from a mathematical modeling of Earth, which is way oversimplified than reality. Now the Globalists will take these claims and tell you to "sacrifice yourself for the planet." Instead of just implementing alternative solutions they want us to eat fuarrrking our own meat grown from labs or edible plastics and live in 15-minute cities. There's no fuarrrking "climate crisis" at all, mainly just pollution is what we have, and now they give people something to fear so that governments can do what they want. >Solarpunk without the abolition of capitalism is just greenwashed Cyberpunk Sorry lain but when there's no capitalism you actually work for a single company that is the State. Yeah it's soul-crushing and everything but in fact people should be encourage to be self-employed and self-educated or something, not bring us back the fuarrrking Communist nightmare again. Unironically, I can't understand you leftists, you're known for being anti-authoritarian and very altruistic but why do you want a solarpunk future so bad? To me I wish more people lived in farms like in the good old days and for cities there'll be people doing simple industrial things, where most is self-employed. Please watch this to get my point: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HXzjwztcgsE

Tank · 2024-04-20 00:04

>>79901 >carbon regenerates to oxygen Carbon and oxygen are two different periodical elements not even in the same category. So i dont know what you are trying to say. Did you mean carbon dioxide? It doesnt do that on it's own it needs plants or some other chemical process to do that and they have a limited capacity to do so. There is some artificial methods >globalists Globalism isnt a real political ideology but is just a buzzword created out of cope trying to pretend globalization isnt just a direct result of a more connected world from technological advances combined with transglobal mega corporations trying to maximize profits which existence of themselves are a natural result of the competition focus of capitalism and this interacts with bribery / lobbying where the wealthy capitalists help influence geopolitics.

Joey · 2024-04-20 07:30

>>79902 technically correct but its pretty clear he's talking about carbon dioxide not mere carbon.

Incognito · 2024-04-20 09:49

>>80011 yeah I talked about it.

Void · 2024-04-20 10:07

>>78190 Wasn't the entire Appleseed anime based on solar punk? I am part of a number of very niche communities of innovators and entrepreneurs who are trying to bring mankind into an era of solar system colonization. The amount of money being put into it is unimaginable, but the largest forces acting against it are unironically businesses and investors that don't want the future, but want to keep things as they are to maintain their profit models. Solving medical problems actually does not benefit many people because it would eliminate the expensive medical gatekeeping and pharmaceutical industries and the rehab when people develop addictions. Defense industries need war, civil unrest, fear, and paranoia. They make money on the weapons and surveillance services they sell. One of the consistent problems I see with solarpunks is that they are too hopeful that their attempts to improve mankind and help people won't be sabotaged. Many of the scientists who worked on nuclear weapons became solarpunks. They envisioned a world where their technology could be used to generate massive amounts of energy which could enable innovation that was too intensive to come up with better solutions to problems. Project Plowshare and Project Orion were both solarpunk applications of nuclear weapons for peace. Robert Zubrin is an interesting man to talk to, and I would encourage Solarpunks to read his book about why we need space exploration. Space exploration is the best philosophy for solarpunk.Solarpunk is a high trust and high education philosophy though, which makes it a little unachievable. It also requires people to think of the future instead of living for the next day which makes it unreachable for most of society wageslaving. Solarpunk at present is a privileged persons philosophy. >Energy needs to be sustainable and robust, we can do that with figuring out space technology >Health issues mean mission failure, this means we need to invest in next generation medicine that would make modern medicine obsolete. >Overcoming radiation damage in technology is the only way to ensure survival >Thermal and environmental control systems are still needed, but could reverse human damage to the Earth >Education and collaboration are needed for survival >Sensors and diagnostics improve the ability for both space exploration and monitoring human well being in the body and environment. The other aspect is that we don't become too reliant on technology, which would become dystopian like the The Machine Stops.

Batou · 2024-04-20 11:10

>>80024 It isn't politics it's business. They do get involved with politics but they dont all have the same goals and often fund all major parties. >open borders There is literally not a single country on the planet with literally open borders. Every country has a process to go through and some kind of security check. They just have different requirements in different countries.

John Titor · 2024-04-20 11:22

>>80026 Almost all politics is just business. Ideologies are merely utilized as trojan horses to drive business interests into mainstream. Next when i say open borders you are thinking of immigration. Im talking about trade and money flow. Africa is the poster child example - you see all the aid programs to donate? They never just transfer donations. They attach donations to conditions and use donations as bribes to force countries to open borders to foreign corporations buying out their native corps and resources. Globalization is at its core about taking over foreign countries homegrown industries. And anyone working in a local corp hates accordingly globalists because they are literally the enemy.

Masami Eiri · 2024-04-20 11:25

>>80026 >>80024 You are both conflating a complex issue: Open borders has many meanings. Borders are inherently a legacy of a pre-global society. They are based on the idea that an imaginary line holds sway over the actions of people. The ability to physically cross a point on a map is not the same as the treatment of those who choose to do so, or the means by which they do it. Capitalism is gay as fuarrrk, because it overly stresses the importance of ownership, and people think that it somehow means that a nation is a "property." Borders change all the time, and before modern geospacial information systems, there was a lot of debate about who lived where and where borders were or are. For the sake of conversation, It sounds like the argument is that the free movement of peoples constitutes an open border, which is by some definitions true - After all, a closed border would imply that there is no transit and no human movement. From a political standpoint, governments have been mattering less and less for the last 50 years, and so the idea that countries have robust borders to defend an ideologically and linguistically similar society is greatly outdated. Very few societies are homogeneous, and even those that are can only keep that homogeneity through the application of civil or military defense. This is the reason right wingers see immigration as a "Globalist invasion" while left wingers see it as "Asylum seeking refugees." People immigrate for a variety of reasons, and traditionally, there was an implication that one must work to eat. In most first world countries, this is not the case, and working (legally) requires a great deal of vetting and credentialing for safety. On the other hand, because there is an implication that those who cannot obtain this kind of credentialing or lack the ability to perform are somehow disadvantaged means that there are robust social systems ideally created to support the elderly and handicapped. Most first world countries have realized that these systems are easily exploited.

Bobby Newmark · 2024-04-20 13:45

>>79745 >There's rarely a landscape view left without any of that. Where the fuarrrk do you live, Electricity Town? >Yet it did not bring the wondrous future we were promised. Instead we went back to burning coal to offset the inefficiencies. Unless you live in Germany or China, this is demonstrably false. Everywhere else the trend is coal plants shutting down. https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-coal-2023/ >Look at countries with the most time zones like the US or Russia. They basically need to have a "wave" going from the east to the west of their national grid to cover those consumption peaks. It's not just this drop in the ocean kind of thing that distributes evenly but has to be a tightly controlled stream. They also typically have multiple electricity grids. The western US grid only crosses two time zones. In any case, I don't see how this is contrary to the idea that you don't have to be in a place where the sun is shining to use electricity that was generated with solar power. >Solarpunk is already dead in the water if it relies on this rightwing bad, leftwing good team sports nonsense Correct, it is.

Apoc · 2024-04-20 14:10

>>80028 Well yes, I'm not denying the connection between business and politics but they are still separate matters since not all business has any connected to politics. Capitalism is in part a political ideology and economic system both. Ah then you meant open trade. I usually only see people say open borders when talking about immigration. I think it's more complicated than that since many countries do hold restrictions on doing trade with certain other countries, in part from thinking they are an economic threat and wanting to replace their gov. Regardless what I was mainly getting at was "globalism" is not a very useful term for discussion because it has such a vague meaning whenever I see anyone use it. >>80029 Capitalism is strange when it comes to the meaning of ownership. The concept of ownership likely existed but in an informal sense where people easily understood it now it has become a complex legal system. For example asset forfeiture by the police is considered legitimate ownership acquisition when in reality it should be considered theft assuming access to it is cut off to who it was taken from.

Random · 2024-04-20 14:17

To get things back on topic more the ideology shown in Solar Punk media is often Green Anarchism aka Eco-Anarchism but also fall under Technogaianism. Technogaianism is basically developing technology to improve the planet. So it has a more positive view of technology as not inherently being harmful to the environment.

Leto Atreides I · 2024-04-20 14:28

>>79901 >claims are based from a mathematical modeling of Earth, which is way oversimplified than reality And you understand the more complex reality in a way that you can predict what's going to happen with the climate better, maybe without any math, somehow? How exactly? Come on now. Sea levels rising, every new year the hottest year ever recorded, they didn't get it wrong. What the climate is doing depends on physics, not on your views of ideal lifestyles or ideal economic policy or fear of government manipulation.

William Holtzer · 2024-04-20 15:06

>>79901 False dichotomies ahoy!

John Rain · 2024-04-20 15:09

>>79748 You wrote so much and yet nothing of substance. You did not point out where I was wrong but only insults and an attempt to "other" me on an anonymous image board of all places. Using those funny words that you think make you appear smart but what I see is someone having their fantasy challenged so they become desperate to defend it. Solarpunk is an aesthetic foremost and turning that into an ideology is not smart at all. As noted, technology could change. Hanging on to low efficiency solar panels as if that's humanity's salvation somehow does not seem enlightened. And I personally own a solar panel and a LiFePo battery but not because I falsely believe it will somehow offset pollution but it's part of my prepping due to me witnessing how things are going to soykaf due to irrational people like you getting their way. When driving across the country I barely see landscapes which are not plastered with wind and solar installations, yet electricity is becoming more expensive. We completely got rid of all nuclear energy and now are burning coal and diesel. We attempt to deindustrialize to reduce our ecological footprint but ignore that it's technological progress and innovation which we need to improve our efficiency in emissions and waste and recycling. Especially latter it's often just a feel good game where everything is dumped on the same pile anyway no matter what color the bin. We severely impact the environment with the production of lithium batteries, nothing but the copper wires can be recycled or repurposed once those "renewable" generators break while we still are not able to have battery powered freight barges. And it's a fact that my country appears to have made a terrible mistake putting all its eggs into that one basket due to the "greens" here having gotten their imbecilic way. I do not know what your motive is to shoot down any critique of the practical failures of the false reality you so direly wish to be true and smear them with the dumbest accusations in order to not have to face the fallacies in your position but the point stands, solarpunk is not viable at the current state of technology despite me looking forward to things like the Aptera, perovskite cells, roof and folding turbines which can operate in low and high wind and not when it's just right and hopefully some better ways to store large amounts of electric charges like whatever happened with solid state batteries. But it's all in R&D for years and claiming that I'm in the pocket of or benefiting from big [insert your industry] while having proclaimed my wishes that Nikola Tesla probably should've succeeded with his free energy adds dents to the good will of your intent. Lastly, mixing technology or science and communism is not smart either. Last time we did that we got Lysenko. And the picture you added, they do the right thing. Surveillance tech needs to be destroyed on sight.

Yet Another Lainon · 2024-04-20 18:06

>>80051 >See what happened to the Aral Sea or just main land China in general where sometimes the fish rather suffocate on land than to remain in the lakes. We have that in America, it's called the Salton Sea. It was created by a private company working for private landowners in the area that wanted to sucker some farmers into buying garbage land in a desert. Now it's poisoned a huge amount of area. So, no, gubbermint isn't the sole source of bad land management.

Jens Hansen · 2024-04-20 19:40

>>80051 > wonder if the entrance to your home are just imaginary lines as well or if it's trespassing because as soon as it affects you personally, that's different. American spotted. In some countries they have something called right to wander. You can enter private property within reason just walking around nature. Obviously this doesnt mean getting in on people's personal spaces just you wont be shot or chased off for entering land under someone's name. >No, no. The Soviets were very much explicit about that. It was more complicated than that. Also the Soviet Union is just one country not a representation of every idea. The USSR had issues caused by over farming of land similar to what the US did that caused the Dust Bowl. https://www.rbth.com/society/2013/10/16/a_look_at_the_old_ration_system_in_russia_30163 >in denial of rising sea levels It's already happening. How much effect it has depends on the terrain for the area. For example https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/pacific-island-sea-levels-rising-faster-than-global-average-wmo-says-2023-08-18/ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220927-italys-plan-to-save-venice-from-sinking https://web.archive.org/web/20240301023643/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/13/climate/flooding-sea-levels-groundwater.html >>80049 >It's a nice idea. Really the problem we have isn't that technology exists, or even that we don't have enough solar panels or whatever. It's all about the way of life we have. >At the moment, we treat the world as a resource to be extracted, rather than a home to live in. It's not really so much fault of every individual. If everyone is to blame then no one is to blame. It really comes from corporations not giving a fuarrrk and governments not stopping them. For example in the past glass bottles were used and you would take them back to the factory to be cleaned and reused but then big companies figured out it's cheaper and easier for them to just use disposable plastic and stopped offering reusing the bottles.

Donna Hawthorne · 2024-04-20 23:01

>>80054 >people are dying of anomalous heat waves all over the world That's common in heatwaves. >anomalous Not sure about that. But I noticed that weather casts have stopped using a sun wearing shades and instead paint the region red or black like it's a fallout zone whenever the temperature goes above 30C. It's quite strange and anyone older than 18 should know what I'm talking about. >sea level has already risen by 10 cm since 1992 Sea levels have risen by the same amount between the 1910's and 1950's. Look, I agree, emissions bad and we should increase efficiency and reduce our ecological footprint. It's just that I don't think handing everything over to the people who clearly are just stoking fear by claiming the world is going to end 50 years ago if we don't immediately declare them as the tsar or the environment and enact their solutions which coincidentally will make them filthy rich and powerful. Grifters and opportunists linger even under causes that you and I agree with. It's important to preserve and restore the ecology but don't give in to alarmists either because that could make the situation worse. >Most "recycling" just gets burned that way any way. Yes, trash is burnt and releases CO2. Probably shouldn't. But transportation releases emissions too. So is it worse than to just pour your crap into the lake? That's what I'm talking about. China is a great example on what not to do. Their rivers have all the colors of the rainbow depending on the factories upstream and most of their arable land is toxic now due to polluted soil and ground water. Even if all industry disappeared over night it would take a long while for all of that and the wild life to recover. But instead we're focusing on meaningless acts like only selling paper bags instead of plastic ones. It's a patch for a culture which isn't used to keep their shopping bags and obviously nothing is done against China because the rest of the world, especially the West has a cheap plastic crap addiction. >This would also lower emissions in the long run Good, we agree then. >>80055 >gubbermint isn't the sole source of bad land management So you then at least agree that governments aren't this silver bullet either and it appears that the problem is too few people having influence over (whether through legal ownership or organized/state force) too much land with seldom the right interests in mind. So yet again I guess throwing those terms like capitalism around does more to obscure the issues than to illuminate. Even when I say communist, I mean fanatics of that school of thought which shapes their actions and decisions, while I'm perfectly aware that real communism has never been achieved at scale. Still, our examples differ in magnitude where the Salton Sea was at that time about 400 square miles while the Aral sea was 26 thousand and 300 square miles. The California Development Company could as it looks only do so much damage compared to the central management of the communist party. To spell it out again, the problem appears to be centralization and scope. Not muh private this, muh private that. And lack of accountability that especially communist leaderships enjoy. So wide spread small time legal ownership of property goes against that through reduced scale of possible damage while having more leverage to enforce accountability of those polluting or causing damage. And the Soviet Union, Eastern Germany and CCP ruled China were and are pretty bad in this regard. Nobody should simp for them or governments in general just because the private sector fuarrrks up too. >>80033 >I don't see how this is contrary to the idea that you don't have to be in a place where the sun is shining to use electricity that was generated with solar power Logistics. In that case it's the near complete loss of current from the resistance of copper wire over miles and miles. Otherwise we could just set up shop in the Saharan Desert and power all of Europe ez. And before we figure that one out we might have modular reactors before that. Alternative reason, we just didn't give Nikola Tesla a shot at charging our ionosphere. >>80058 Ah, the alarmist. >American spotted. Believe me, in Europe we aren't very fond of home intruders either. >Also the Soviet Union is just one country not a representation of every idea. I see, it wasn't real communism after all. But I'm sure it's gonna work this time, right? >in denial of rising sea levels Slow and steadily, yes. Venice being a high maintenance city doesn't really tell however if it's due to man made climate change or that we're currently in a warm period during which sea levels naturally peak and while human influence adds a bit it's just being used as an excuse for wealth transfer to the neo-aristocracy. >in the past glass bottles were used It's not gonna save the planet on its own and I believe the anon you replied to made an interesting point. >It's all about the way of life we have True, and as I see it there's a couple options. Like I said, people need to be well off enough to care about the long term, not just the immediate. But also a lot of people are simply cattle minded and will not care no matter what. So what do you do? The WEF for instance appears to be of the opinion that everyone beneath them, and that's like 99.999% of the world population should essentially become live stock or at least a serf class which lives on the most basic essentials. They them selves, including the malthusians among them would of course be exempt and enjoy unbridled luxury in the meantime. That kinda is like kicking dead whales down the beach and the moral dilemma aside has severe practical issues since you need this general uplift of the population to have people educated and capable enough to maintain existing progress and forward innovation. Without that we will just fizzle out as a species in the most disgraceful way. Even if we managed to reduce the ecological footprint in the meantime. A shift in thought is possible to some degree but greatly limited due to the majority of people being cattle minded so you need to instead lure them with better solutions like highly optimized affordable housing and sell it as the default way of life while in the meantime people with some independent though and ambitions can go their own ways and work on the technological advancement with offsets the general wastefulness of the plebian. But also profit incentives need to be in the correct place for that. It's truly a challenge but one I believe we need to focus on and tackle. Our survival as a species may depend on it. Or, and that's my personal favorite, and one that this image board might actually pull off, there needs to be a new religion which is sort of like shinto, less of the budhist crap but a sort of worship of the earth as a life source. And we begin to believe in some sort of greater consciousness like Gaia with possibly a prime creator somewhere down the line. Because if atheistic consoomerism isn't gonna change general behavior then maybe some belief will that you're being punished or not accepted by the collective consciousness if you have offended against it my littering or something. That after all we're all connected and shiet.

Jean Dupont · 2024-04-21 04:34

>>80054 >anomalous heat waves what are covid vaccines? >rising sea level fear they have been saying the world is gonna explode since the 1950s

Hououin Kyouma · 2024-04-21 05:46

>>80070 >anomalous heat waves >what are covid vaccines? What are you even trying to say, don't poison the conversation with your vaxx conspiracies, they were a cash grab and have nothing to do with the environment or environmental related deaths. People die from anomalous heat waves because most of the worlds population lives in soykaf houses with no climate control and old people and young people have heat strokes and can't receive treatment. If you know about heat injuries, once you suffer one, you become prone to more injuries because your body just cant handle the heat. If the heat is on average X over a decade for the last 100 years and the following decade it was X+5 then that would in fact be anomalous. >Grifters and opportunists linger even under causes that you and I agree with. It's important to preserve and restore the ecology but don't give in to alarmists either because that could make the situation worse. Of course there is an incentive to be alarmist. The main problem is that nobody knows at what point the environment will irreversibly have a cascade and collapse or be resilient and recover. I would focus more on the solution presented then on the problem itself.If we act like the world will end in 50 years, then perhaps we can find solutions. Nobody wants to give up their lifestyles until they are on the verge of death. A diabetes patient wont give up the Coca Cola until hes 200kg, having his legs amputated and told he is going to die from heart failure soon if he won't act now. >>80065 >But I noticed that weather casts have stopped using a sun wearing shades and instead paint the region red or black like it's a fallout zone I attended a meteorology symposium when I was at university and one of the speakers was making fun of this,even weather cannot escape journalistic sensationalism. he also talked about storms having a DEFCON style end of the world warning tier system which isn't scientific and only confuses normeis.

Hitomi · 2024-04-21 08:04

>If the heat is on average X over a decade for the last 100 years and the following decade it was X+5 then that would in fact be anomalous. The mistake is limiting the planets observation to a short human lifespan. On a million year span its nothing and greater changes occurred. Originally in 60s they warned about next ice age fearing sun would go colder. After they failed they went with omg heat dead next. And while it did get warmer their doomsday predictions failed again and statements like "year 2000 we dead" failed. All in all its just using people's fear to drive commercial interests. Also the whole climate change stick is going circles about co² when cloud seeding is a bigger problem - countries engage in weather manipulation istealing rain for themself at the cost of creating additional issues since it creates droughts in the next region the rain would normally fall.

Acid Burn · 2024-04-22 07:00

>>80073 While I understand the concept of tricking one self by thinking the due date for an exam is a week earlier so I can induce the last minute productivity binge with some time to spare, on a large scale this might be worse when a situation perceived as desperate will warrant a desperate response. One notorious example is someone like Bill Gates going full Mr. Burns and proposes to block the sun through large scale weather modification. I forgot what aerosol at what altitude but it was to essentially block the sun as a response to man made global warming. So if this whole situation is over dramatized due to sensationalist media and an incentive to tamper data then can you imagine what a mess that would be? Keep in mind we tend to over steer dramatically when we talk about large time frames. That's the reason we have political pendulums after all. But speaking of tricking ourselves to make better choices. What did you think of my idea of loving Lain unironically as a solution to environmental protection? Because paganism was a mess, abrahamic religions, while having suited us for a couple millennia, has become unsuitable and atheism and scientism now beginning to fail us with its own dogma and failure to provide purpose maybe some sort of spiritualism may lead us in the right direction again. Lain, as I understand it is this personification of the earth, global collective consciousness, terrestrial life, a sub node of the greater cosmic creative force (not related to Starwars) or the eternal of the universe. It could be a good basis to promote the following tenets: > quality and content of the soul > the importance of the individual as well as the collective and responsibility towards each > preservation of life and variety thereof > embrace of advancement and not just blind progress towards a cliff > foster the realization that we're all connected but also that we need to look out for ourselves It would be funny, possibly beneficial and something that could make this board finally be good for something. /thread

Tequila · 2024-04-22 08:04

>>78190 What is solarpunk and why does it suck?

Dox · 2024-04-22 14:59

>>80073 >>80077 They didn't tried to build an entire narrative and political movement about it. They just had a few very cold winter and the scientists who analysed the data thought it was the start of a small ice age like we had in the late middle age. >>80073 >even weather cannot escape journalistic sensationalism. But I am sure a large doomsday movement that have many followers do, right? I mean, look at the rising water level. 10 centimeters. The people who live near the sea haven't even noticed the difference. The worse projections show one meter over 100 years. 100 years is far more than the life expectancy of a macadam road and half the seashore houses made to be sold will be ruins then anyway.

Leto Atreides I · 2024-04-22 15:49

>>80065 >>anomalous >Not sure about that. It's anomalous when temperature records are broken by a massive margin by a weather pattern that has never been seen before. That's exactly what happened in the pacific northwest in the summer of 2021. Nobody was prepared for it. >But I noticed that weather casts have stopped using a sun wearing shades and instead paint the region red or black like it's a fallout zone whenever the temperature goes above 30C. That's true, there is a lot of sensationalism about it. But if it's 35C out and you're in a place that usually gets 25C at most, you will have a serious problem on your hands. It's also a problem for wildlife and, indirectly, crops when the winter is much warmer than it would normally be, as it was in Europe in 2022. You could wear a t shirt in Munich on Christmas that year. If that's not anomalous then I don't know what is. >Sea levels have risen by the same amount between the 1910's and 1950's We only have satellite data from 1992 onwards, hence why I quoted it. It's still alarming when the sea level rises nearly the same amount in 30 years what it did in the previous 70 years. > Grifters and opportunists linger even under causes that you and I agree with. It's important to preserve and restore the ecology but don't give in to alarmists either because that could make the situation worse. I quite agree. However, you've consistently been coming up with reasons why either greenhouse gas emissions aren't a problem at all, or nitpicky reasons why solar power is bad or such or such specific policy is bad, while your alternatives seem to be basically 'carry on as is' or 'just build nuclear power plants'. Basically, you seem to be concern trolling. >It's a patch for a culture which isn't used to keep their shopping bags and obviously nothing is done against China because the rest of the world, especially the West has a cheap plastic crap addiction. I quite agree. >Logistics. In that case it's the near complete loss of current from the resistance of copper wire over miles and miles. That's one of many reasons high voltage transmission lines are used for long-distance bulk electricity transport. You can transport electricity over hundreds of miles with only 5-10% power losses, including from the step-up and step-down transformers. For instance, the Viking Link is over 600 km long and has line losses of about 4%. >Otherwise we could just set up shop in the Saharan Desert and power all of Europe ez. You probably could actually power parts of Spain and Italy that way, but you'd need a huge undersea cable and you'd need to manage lots of complicated international relations. Plus Spain and southern Italy are plenty sunny on their own. Those are the main reasons why such a project is unlikely to happen. >So you then at least agree that governments aren't this silver bullet either Absolutely, I just disagree that 'small time legal ownership of property' is a silver bullet either. Central planning is only bad when it's combined with ideology and lack of accountability (and therefore incompetence). Since communist revolutionaries have always seized the government, removing barriers to implementing their policies, it is no wonder they have so many utterly failed geoengineering attempts. Also, fun fact, they're going to try mining lithium in the Salton Sea soon, because apparently there's all kinds of toxic chemicals like that in the ground now. So that's cool. >neo-aristocracy. Let's be honest here. With a few notable exceptions, it's the same old aristocracy in a new coat. >Or, and that's my personal favorite, and one that this image board might actually pull off, there needs to be a new religion which is sort of like shinto, less of the budhist crap but a sort of worship of the earth as a life source. And we begin to believe in some sort of greater consciousness like Gaia with possibly a prime creator somewhere down the line. Because if atheistic consoomerism isn't gonna change general behavior then maybe some belief will that you're being punished or not accepted by the collective consciousness if you have offended against it my littering or something. That after all we're all connected and shiet. There are people who really believe this kind of stuff, but they're insufferable and the religion-brain tends to make them very ineffective politicians and activists. There's always Eris, anyway. >>80077 >On a million year span its nothing and greater changes occurred. sure, but a million year span is not relevant to human civilization. If this were a change happening over the course of a million years we could very easily adapt, both technologically and biologically, passively. Since it's happening on a much shorter time span (100 ish years), we have to actively adapt. >when cloud seeding is a bigger problem - countries engage in weather manipulation istealing rain for themself at the cost of creating additional issues since it creates droughts in the next region the rain would normally fall. I mean, sure, but again I don't see why one problem should distract attention from an entirely separate problem when both can be attacked in concert. It seems like a concern trolling tactic. 'whataboutism'.

Guthrie · 2024-04-22 20:07

>>80065 >Believe me, in Europe we aren't very fond of home intruders either. A house isn't a border. Even in tribes where they basically have no walls they have an idea of privacy of personal space. This is completely different from borders so your argument doesn't make sense. >I see, it wasn't real communism after all. But I'm sure it's gonna work this time, right? You're making an argument that was never made. Communism is just a very vague term that could mean any economic system that comes after capitalism. The USSR was economically what was called State-Capitalist. State-Capitalism was a concept invented by Lenin that was meant as a transitional period. This actually went against what Marx said how things would probably happen, if he were around at the time and to comment he would have said that the Russian revolution would fail because Russia had yet to even reach a capitalist stage of development and still bordering on feudalism could not at that time advance to communism. Anarchists in Russia had fought against the Bolsheviks. Stalin had stopped the attempts at heading the USSR into actual Communism that Lenin had proposed, by prematurely calling it as having reached Communism because he was a power hungry leader not wanting to loosen his control. Lenin had wanted him to never be in power but died before he was able to send out his letter of warning against him. Though in a weird twist of fate if Stalin were not the leader at the start of WWII it may have been that the Nazis would have won the war because the Soviets and the UK air forces were the most important factors to the allied powers winning. >It's not gonna save the planet on its own and I believe the anon you replied to made an interesting point. Making excuses doing nothing only makes things worse. Though Im not suggesting just doing just anything, since there is of course some things that are a waste of resources which many billionaires pour money into like how the Gates Foundation does. Not all efforts are equal. >sort of like shinto, less of the budhist crap but a sort of worship of the earth as a life source. Shinto doesnt have to do with Buddhism. It just became mixed with it in some time periods in Japan. It is still it's own religion, there even are Shinto shrines in the US by the way. This is because in Shinto they create new gods by dividing them and setting up a place of worship for them this is called bunrei. >But also profit incentives need to be in the correct place for that. The best incentive is caring about other people not money. Like said before making technology proprietary and secretive slows development to a snail pace especially under US standards. >consumerism Consumerism is literally encouraged as part of the economy. The economy is set up to make people constantly buying things and see objects and even people as disposable.

Apoc · 2024-04-22 20:35

gemini, pisces.. and the hand of eris

Dozer · 2024-04-23 07:31

>Though in a weird twist of fate if Stalin were not the leader at the start of WWII it may have been that the Nazis would have won the war because the Soviets... damn that would have been a shame. Good thing Roosevelt was literally boxing up entire factories, massive quantities of everything from canned meat to airplanes and uranium to ship over to the Soviets to keep, uhh, the democratically elected government of germany out of power.

Cowboy · 2024-04-23 08:10

>>80109 >a house is no border because even houseless tribes create borders for themself what the hell am i reading? The concept is just marking your territory which size is defined by its border. That goes for countries, houses or cell walls. Its all the same: You try to keep out unwanted and retain what you want in the area you establish as your own.

Bob Arctor · 2024-04-23 10:18

>>80105 >can Key word here. Anyway, the oil and gas will be burned, we can not prevent thirdies from burning it. It is not materially possible that 5% of the human population pay for everyone to go solar and it is not imaginable that thirdies will accept to die of poverty rather than using the resources they have. Whichever changes will happen will happen. Instead of being radical conservatives, we should embrace it and terraform the planet to fit our needs. Give me one reason to care about the biodiversity in the rainforest. The sea level will only ever be a problem for Venice. Those people whose island sink in the water only discredit the fight against climate change. >>80127 >The N word You have just put your finger on it. If it was about the climate, the greens wouldn't want to close nuclear power plants, but their platform is to offer the solution to a problem, so they need the problem to exist.

Lunch · 2024-04-23 10:26

>>80128 blackrock is heavily invested in oil&coal and forbids any nuclear promotion through their esg score.

Agent Smith · 2024-04-23 10:55

>>80129 Rookie mistake. They could simply buy shares of Westinghouse and win no matter what happen.

Anonymous · 2024-04-23 11:26

>>80127 >And 1910 to 1950 is 40 years. Yeah but I couldn't find a source for the numbers you said so I went with the graph I could find easily. >Either way, you calling me a troll for calling you out on your crap seems to have gotten to you. You're acting like someone would if they were not arguing in good faith. I don't mean to imply that you actually aren't, but this incredibly condescending paragraph and your insistence that I have an "aesthetics driven world view" isn't a good sign either. But you could have also just disappeared up your own ass as well. Hard to tell. >But do you understand the sheer infrastructure which would be required to transport the desired giga or even terrawatts from africa to europe? giga or terawatts? Yes I suppose if you literally put all production in your grid hundreds of miles away it would involve about as much as making a whole new grid. That's obviously infeasible though, I thought you were talking about just a solar farm in the Sahara, which is by no means technically infeasible. >Especially considering the heat? Copper is a good electric conductor but current produces heat increasing resistance. Indeed, but a typical HVDC cable will be thick, which means its resistance is quite low to begin with, and with high voltage you can carry the same amount of power with less current. There are HVDC interconnects that cross hundreds of miles of desert in the US west and have low line losses. >Oh you sweet summer child. Central planning is done by people. People are fallible. no soykaf. Thanks for the wake-up call, I totally thought people were infallible. Just because people are fallible doesn't mean you can't have competent central planning and keep out psychos.

Project 2501 · 2024-04-23 11:40

>>80131 >doesn't mean you can't have competent central planning And how do you do that? You are going to have politicians whose only skill is to get themselves in power to nominate people who did a favor to them in the past in charge, and then all important decisions will be in the hand of incompetent people. If they are incompetent but good willed, consider yourself lucky, most of the time you get people who simply distribute public money to their friends.

John Rain · 2024-04-23 11:46

>>80128 >what are tides: the image >Give me one reason to care about the biodiversity in the rainforest. That's where most of the drugs we discover come from. Also, biodiversity loss happens a lot more near urbanized or suburbanized areas. There are less birds, less frogs, less bugs. Stinking beaches full of sharp bits of dead coral or piles of dead seaweed. Less fish to catch. All the things that you probably valued a lot as a child, slowly going away. >The sea level will only ever be a problem for Venice. Those people whose island sink in the water only discredit the fight against climate change. Yeah, all those pacific islanders can get fuarrrked. >>80133 >and how do you do that? Idk, how do you have any large organization acting competently? It does happen, so it can't be impossible. I don't think the burden is on me to lay out an entire organizational chart for a hypothetical organization.

Bobby Newmark · 2024-04-23 11:59

>>80128 I've long given up on greens doing anything reasonable. >thirdies Yes, the problem you've described is actual. And is the same problem that will also stem from Europeans when we further deindustrialize. Because people got to keep themselves warm in the winter somehow. And Germany is already getting about 30% of its energy from coal and gas. What an achievement of those greens. But if you're alluding some populations being more animalistic and primate than others then I'm sure you would find interest in the point I made about valuing the quality and content of one's soul. Both psychopaths and brutish personalities, whether in groups or as individuals would either have to live up to a higher standard or live with being regarded as lesser. It's the fairest way I believe to promote the highest ideals of our kind. As for the rainforest, fact is we came to be in this system of tightly intertwined biomes. And it should be evident as to why we would wish to preserve it within reasonable means. Sure you can be pragmatic and do ecological warfare like the Chinese are doing while utilizing the worst fishing methods in open waters next to coasts of other countries but the damage they're doing is immense. Decades of lobster stewardship done for nothing for instance and one extinct species usually causing a cascade of others going extinct too. We might be lucky even just getting the plastics polluted salt water fish we got now. Do you see where I'm getting at? >I couldn't find a source From NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ but you can check your own graph too. >You're acting like If you're the same anon as from some other posts that were in reply to me then I wouldn't throw stones in that glass house of yours. Solarpunk is at best an interesting dystopian fiction setting at worst it's manifesting in the "renewable energy" failure that I've had to witness in the country that I've been living in. Fact is, if you don't build right next to a shore at a known fault line with your fallback emergency generators in the basement or are run by a communist regime then nuclear has the most output per ecological footprint by far, even if it doesn't look like OP's fairy tale image. That's as far as I've seen is factual and you can either cry about that or accept the glaring flaws I've been pointing out. >just a solar farm in the Sahara Then there's no point in doing that. >here are HVDC interconnects that cross hundreds of miles How about a thousand miles and at full capacity? Point is, it doesn't come for free. Quite expensive in fact in both cost and resources. >If they are incompetent but good willed, consider yourself lucky The term "do-gooder" is an insult for a reason. >I don't think the burden is on me No, I think it is very much on you for making that extraordinary claim of central planing not falling victim to our human pathologies. Especially in all the evidence and examples contrary to your proposal. Organizations are efficient. They usually are. But that efficiency goes towards propagating itself. That's how large organizations most often tend to work. What you suggest is the freak exception. So now I wonder, how could loving Lain help reduce egoism and desire for personal power like Christianity did but without the dated baggage.

Marly Krushkhova · 2024-04-23 13:27

>>80135 >then nuclear has the most output per ecological footprint by far It depends a lot on the specific location and the specific situation surrounding construction. Ihave never not agreed with you that solar is not always the best in every situation. Nuclear is also not always the best in every situation. Why beat this dead horse? >How about a thousand miles and at full capacity? Very nearly a thousand miles. A thousand miles is probably feasible. What does "at full capacity" mean? Do you actually know anything about electricity? >Point is, it doesn't come for free. Quite expensive in fact in both cost and resources. Duh. But you said line losses are "nearly one hundred percent", which is simply not true. >the burden is extremely on you [to provide an organization chart of a hypothetical organization] fuarrrk off, I'm not writing a dissertation for you. >What you suggest is the freak exception. According to what evidence? Have you actually tabulated anything? I have merely said that these vague principles you assert could be overcome. You seem to believe that we are doomed to never fly because gravity pulls us down. >So now I wonder, how could loving Lain help reduce egoism and desire for personal power like Christianity did but without the dated baggage. If >>80136 is anything to go by, all it does is make people retarded.

Koos van der Merwe · 2024-04-24 07:10

>>80136 While true, I do not think I have a direct obligation to the pacific islanders either. Especially if something is most likely beyond my control. I mean, it is like kicking dead whales down the beach for them and they probably will have to leave for another bigger island. This blatant disregard for the earth's biome, now that's just thirdie-brained and on par with "fire stick hunting". Due to personal bias I of course believe that the earth is for humans to make the best of it however one also has to keep their home clean and in order. Anything else dangerously close to a mindless infestation. Something that nature usually deals with through mass extinction. >>80138 >It depends a lot on the specific location and the specific situation surrounding construction Not compared to nuclear. It's not even a competition. The land usage to power output ratio is magnitudes apart. Even at the best conditions solar is less than a 10th the output for the same footprint. >A thousand miles is probably feasible Yes, my use of terminology is lacking on this subject, however there's only so much "bandwidth" or maximally allowed throughput in a single HV copper wire. While hooking up some remote settlements is common where necessity overrules economic inefficiencies. Building an intercontinental connection of electricity grids is at the same scale pointless and at a size where it makes sense it's a mega project. This should currently answer the question as to why we can't power one place with the electricity generated in another far away place but just like with the example of the Aral sea you seem repeatedly unwilling to understand the sheer scale at hand. >I am angry, It's not my job to educate you >proceeds to ask for source as to why personal incentives are contradictory to benevolent central planing I see what you're doing here but for what end? Do you think you will be the next just emperor? For each Marcus Aurelius there's going to be at least a Nero. Historically former was a rarity. Likewise do we not have any dictator we praise. Chernobyl was one famous example of central mismanagement and while I enjoy using the autobahn, I don't think Hitler and the NSDAP were a good instance of central planning either. Hence the burden of proof remains on you for that claim. What mechanism would keep an unaccountable entity like that in check? And please don't just reply with "more accountability" if you wish to argue this point further. Either way I'm becoming weary from this topic and would conclude it with solarpunk being an interesting aesthetic and setting for a dystopian novel or movie but trying to will it into reality is what I've seen fail spectacularly around me. Now should you get a home solar and wind generator installed? If the numbers check out and you get some sweet subsidies for that? Go ahead! But as a large scale solution on a national level? It was a mistake at the current state of technology. >all it does is make people retarded And you don't seem to understand..

Hong, Guil Dong · 2024-08-26 12:56

Thorium is coming. It's not solarpunk though, is that alright?

Lady Jessica · 2024-08-26 14:42

>>83707 Thorium 232 gets converted to uranium 233 to make it fissile. Just more nuclear waste. Nuclear plants have to be decommissioned and built in new locations and they use a lot of rare earth minerals which can be recycled for very long periods of time if ever so it isnt sustainable long term and still pollutes nuclear waste. It also centralizes power more leaving more single points of failure issues and giving larger power to some governments over others.

Six · 2024-08-26 15:24

>>83708 I meant cant be recycled for a long time because they are irradiated metals.

Nell · 2024-08-26 22:03

>>78300 >they are made with fossil fuels By slaves.

Armitage · 2024-08-27 07:12

>>78300 >>83712 Technically plastic from fossil fuel is better than burning it because it at least makes it harder for carbon to release from it into the atmosphere. Also there is alternative materials for solar panels in research. There also is thermal solar which uses mirrors instead of solar panels.

Hong, Guil Dong · 2024-08-27 20:10

>>83713 >atmospheric carbon is the ultimate evil get a grip >alternative materials for solar in research [than plastic coverings] semi transmissive coverings are not a new thing that needs to be in research, but the right plastics are pretty gud and reasonably cheap and hardy.

Yuki Nagato · 2024-08-27 20:45

dude, guys, solar panels work 1000x better without the atmosphere in the way nuclear power also-- where's the waste in outer space? all this eco-sins is seriously paying for indulgences from the 'green science' clergy, pollution is a genetic signal to leave the environmental niche for a better one 'hey let's fix the problems down here first' um, no thank you. think i'll explore Infinite Space forever in my immortal body too much of the narrative is geo-centric. why fix earth? so you can work for a boss and pay rent to a landlord, better? all of the -punks have been a marketting gimmick, this one was for web3 ethereum smartchain diverse cto, but has yet to have its aesthetics solidified in the minds of under-paid over-worked artists who have their work stolen and the message rewritten for a 100 million dollar hollywood blockbuster as was the case for cyberpunk

Faye Valentine · 2024-08-27 21:44

I like the idea but a lot of people into solarpunk just don't realize how utterly reliant they are on a big, industrial civilization and global supply chains. I like it as an aesthetic and a set of values, but in the real world some compromises have to be made for things to work and I am totally okay with that. Still way better than the cyberpunk soykafshow we find ourselves in today. >>83709 >it gets converted to uranium 233 While inside the reactor, not necessarily as an output. Some proposed MSR reactors produce very small amounts of short-lived waste compared to conventional LWRs. The problem of nuclear waste is pretty exaggerated anyway. Lithium waste is arguably a worse problem. >Nuclear plants have to be decommissioned and built in new locations Any kind of power plant has a design lifetime, and they can often be operated for longer than the design lifetime with upgrades. And what's this about being rebuilt in new locations? >It also centralizes power more leaving more single points of failure issues and giving larger power to some governments over others. This is a problem but I don't think we can be picky when it comes to providing electricity. It's a situation where you get A LOT of efficiency and reliability from having a big central grid with centralized infrastructure. Same goes for sewers, for that matter. The benefits of centralization are too great compared to the downsides, so we have to turn to governance structures that deal with the downsides of centralization. Same with sewers and water distribution and many other things. Large infrastructure projects can't be done away with. >>80151 >>It depends a lot on the specific location and the specific situation surrounding construction >Not compared to nuclear. What compared to what, in what sense? This doesn't really make sense as a reply to the post you're replying to. There is no form of power production that can be done at a large scale without a lot of time selecting good plant locations and a lengthy spin-up cycle, and nuclear is especially cumbersome in this respect for good reason. Nuclear disasters can be even worse than coal or oil disasters, and highly skilled and responsible builders and operators are required to avoid them. >The land usage to power output ratio is magnitudes apart. Even at the best conditions solar is less than a 10th the output for the same footprint. OK, but if you don't have a good source of nuclear fuel and you have lots of desert, solar still may be a better option. Maybe you can't find a good lake for the coolant, or your region floods too much. There are tons of reasons why solar or nuclear could be the better use of land in a specific scenario, it can't all be boiled down to one number. >however there's only so much "bandwidth" or maximally allowed throughput in a single HV copper wire. For a typical HVDC interconnect the total "bandwidth" is in the gigawatt range, and these are paths that cross thousands of kilometers. It would not be economical to connect an isolated settlement with such technologies, they are used almost exclusively for bulk power transport across very long distances. >This should currently answer the question as to why we can't power one place with the electricity generated in another far away place But we can and we do. That's the entire idea of a large-scale power grid.

Special Agent Bob · 2024-08-27 22:40

>>83721 > While inside the reactor, not necessarily as an output. Some proposed MSR reactors produce very small amounts of short-lived waste compared to conventional LWRs. That is a little better. >The problem of nuclear waste is pretty exaggerated anyway. Lithium waste is arguably a worse problem. Not really because the waste can be dumped in the environment from an accident during transport and it has to be stored for extremely long periods of time in which there is no guarantee it wont leak say for example an earthquake or flood. Lithium can be recycled. Also many batteries for home energy storage dont use lithium such as various redox flow batteries and there is many battery technologies in general some dont even use any rare earth minerals like a sea salt battery. There is also several other issues. You see traditional generators if they dont store their energy in batteries during lower power usage that energy is wasted which isnt too much an issue with nuclear but it is an issue with all the fossil fuel generators. There also is a grid system problem. Converting DC generator power to AC then back to DC again in appliances a lot of energy is lost as heat. A DC power system would make various alternative energy sources more viable options in efficiency and it would be safer reducing electrocutions and house fires. > Any kind of power plant has a design lifetime, and they can often be operated for longer than the design lifetime with upgrades. And what's this about being rebuilt in new locations? That is just regular building maintenance. Nuclear is different because of nuclear decay adding an additional factor. They have to build in new locations due to the environmental radiation or something along those lines. >This is a problem but I don't think we can be picky when it comes to providing electricity. It's a situation where you get A LOT of efficiency and reliability from having a big central grid with centralized infrastructure. Same goes for sewers, for that matter. The benefits of centralization are too great compared to the downsides, so we have to turn to governance structures that deal with the downsides of centralization. Same with sewers and water distribution and many other things. Large infrastructure projects can't be done away with. Many people try and suggest nuclear meltdown is the main problem with nuclear plants but it actually isnt the most common issue. Say for example there is a flood near a plant, it winds up releasing nuclear material, this happened before. What I meant by government power is one government over another. They can either entirely cut off power or use it as a way of controlling other countries. Plus most places would not be able to afford thorium reactors, nuclear is costly as is so power also will hinge on uranium deposit size which is mainly in Russia and Canada.

Nobody special · 2024-08-27 22:53

>>83723 >They have to build in new locations due to the environmental radiation or something along those lines. Huh? Who told you this? Unless there's a leak the radiation released from any reasonably designed nuclear plant is very low, lower than a coal plant. >You see traditional generators if they dont store their energy in batteries during lower power usage that energy is wasted Actually they usually store energy in flywheels. It helps a lot with stabilizing the grid frequency. >Lithium can be recycled So can nuclear waste, in some cases. >Say for example there is a flood near a plant, it winds up releasing nuclear material, this happened before. To be fair, if you're referring to the Fukushima disaster, that was also caused by a major known design flaw. Nuclear incidents don't generally happen due to "acts of god", and they happen very infrequently compared to, say, oil spills.

Anamika · 2024-08-27 23:25

>>83725 > Huh? Who told you this? Unless there's a leak the radiation released from any reasonably designed nuclear plant is very low, lower than a coal plant. Read it in article im not sure if i can find again but i will try. For one thing it takes 15 to 20 years or more to decommission a plant. Only smaller ones can be decomissed in less but even then lowest is 5 years. https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/nuclear-decommissioning-addressing-the-past-and-ensuring-the-future https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/meeting-the-challenges-of-decommissioning It is also possible i may have been thinking of the materials having to be stored in a new location waiting for the radiation to decay but i swore i recall reading they get built in new locations when decommissioned. > Actually they usually store energy in flywheels. It helps a lot with stabilizing the grid frequency. Ah yeah i momentarily forgot about those. I wonder if they ever use them in wind and hydro dam generators or not and if it reduces efficiency > So can nuclear waste, in some cases. recycled into what usage? > To be fair, if you're referring to the Fukushima disaster, that was also caused by a major known design flaw. Nuclear incidents don't generally happen due to "acts of god", and they happen very infrequently compared to, say, oil spills. Wasnt Fukashima I was thinking of. There has been various cases you just rarely ever hear about them. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/flood-risk-nuclear-power-plants https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01928-8 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2300818X https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flood-berm-collapses-at-neb-nuclear-plant/ There also is the issue of cancer rates of nuclear plant workers. That is before even getting to miners. https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2023-08-17/a-study-with-300000-workers-in-the-nuclear-industry-suggests-an-increased-risk-of-death-from-cancer.html Plus there is the issue that nuclear plants can be easily converted into nuclear weapon facilities which means there is no hope of end to stockpiling of nuclear weapons since it will be used as an excuse by the US then Russia will make it their excuse.

Zero Cool · 2024-08-28 12:10

>>83726 >takes decades to decommission plant you may notice that the US has basically stopped building nuclear reactors outside of the Navy, and has maybe only built what one in my lifetime ? This is not insignificantly because of odious regulations which also cause this slow decommisioning process. >theres a lot of incidents with nuclear plants all of those issues that I can get to reading despite paywalls about are irrelevant and not really dangerous. Fukushima was worse and it wasn't bad at all either. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki basically were restored on the same time scale as the other jap cities that were bombed out by conventional weapons, and chernobyl is filled with a pleasant forest which has become a minor tourist destination. Don't overestimate the danger that these things pose. >what can nuclear waste be used for mainly to reprocess to use again as nuclear fuel. >increased cancer risk in nuke workers read your own article, if this is real its a small problem. Working on solar panels or wind towers also poses certain dangers, I'm pretty sure nuclear is still safer per kWh.

Demeere · 2024-08-28 13:19

>>83726 >I wonder if they ever use them in wind and hydro dam generators or not and if it reduces efficiency They do and it is a pretty efficient way to store power short-term.

Ivan Horvat · 2024-08-28 17:24

>>83744 > you may notice that the US has basically stopped building nuclear reactors outside of the Navy, and has maybe only built what one in my lifetime ? This is not insignificantly because of odious regulations which also cause this slow decommisioning process. It's slow because they cant just blow it up. They have to dismantle it. > all of those issues that I can get to reading despite paywalls about are irrelevant and not really dangerous. Fukushima was worse and it wasn't bad at all either. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki basically were restored on the same time scale as the other jap cities that were bombed out by conventional weapons, and chernobyl is filled with a pleasant forest which has become a minor tourist destination. Don't overestimate the danger that these things pose. I didnt run into any paywalls. Maybe because I pause loading before anything comes up. Your points are quite odd, even to this day there is areas in Chernobyl that people cant be in for long and some of the animals there have mutated to not resemble the species they once were because others didnt survive to pass on genes, Again spreading nuclear material from natural disasters is a clear gamble. Likewise there is human disaster, what if a plane crashes into a nuclear plant? What about radioactive waste spills from a road accident? > read your own article, if this is real its a small problem. Working on solar panels or wind towers also poses certain dangers, I'm pretty sure nuclear is still safer per kWh. Like saying carcinogens from smoking is negligible because most smokers dont get lung cancer.

The Phantom Phreak · 2024-08-29 08:49

>>83751 >Your points are quite odd, even to this day there is areas in Chernobyl that people cant be in for long Chernobyl is the worst case scenario and it was somewhat deliberate in the sense that the reactor didn't just go from normal operation to melting down. The operators were running a scientific experiment, put the reactor in a weird state and were fuarrrking around with the control rods until it blew up in their faces. Remember when the BBC let Top Gear film a whole episode inside the exclusion zone, it's clearly it is not as dangerous as you've been programmed to believe by hollywood. And it is programming. Every post-apocalypse TV show (Fear TWD, Last Man on Earth, Z Nation) has exactly the same episode template where "oh no the nuclear power plants are melting down for no reason". It's almost as if somebody is paying them to spread FUD about nuclear power. The same with all your mainstream media links to be honest. They are not telling you the truth they are telling you what they've been paid to tell you. And when you get down to it, the only existential threat to the trillion dollar fossil fuel companies is nuclear energy. >what if a plane crashes into a nuclear plant? Nothing. https://bigthink.com/the-present/nuclear-power-plant-survive-9-11-airplane-attack/ >What about radioactive waste spills from a road accident? Also nothing? The nuclear waste produced by humanity from the last 70 years fits inside a football stadium. We don't have truckloads of nuclear waste zooming up and down the highway everyday or whatever you're imagining. If it leaks out onto the road then somebody with a hazmat suit cleans it up? If it caught fire that would suck for anybody close enough to breath in the smoke but then again so is a Tesla fire. And like >>83744 said it's not the 1950s anymore we have nuclear reactor designs now that takes in the waste from other reactor designs as fuel.

Anon · 2024-09-06 09:32

Switch · 2024-09-06 14:53

>>83912 я тебя ненавижу

Junichi Fujiwara · 2024-09-07 03:09

I'm revisiting this thread after some thought and I'm still for nuclear plants as long as they aren't operated by diversity hires. And as a mobile solar panel owner when they get those Perovskites working I'm gonna put them on my roof so I don't have to buy as much of that clean European coal energy. But looking into "Solarpunk" it appears that this is indeed just some Yoghurt Socialism that tries to revive terrible 20th century ideas with a new face lift. But reality is, Marxist Socialism is cancer even with wind and solar generators tacked onto it and as >>83721 pointed out even with a decentralized utilization of solar and wind you still rely on very centralized mining and manufacturing operations. In essence, if you run anything more than a watermill, you're going to be dependent on industry that we here try to destroy and outsource for some stupid reason. >but if you don't have a good source of nuclear fuel and you have lots of desert, solar still may be a better option Yes but I was talking from a European perspective where deserts are sparse and rivers are plenty. Yet we here still decided to decommission all (and I mean ALL) nuclear plants in favor of deforesting landscapes for solar panel fields and reopening those old coal plants. But whatever the technical details are, I will refuse to accept it being used as a Trojan Horse that attempts to make one of the worst economic models and social experiments somehow more palatable again. Pollution is still a worse issue than a CO2 footprint and socialist countries have been the worst at that. The great gripe with a free market system is the sheer overproduction in the face of plenty and for that I believe a Negative Income Tax is the most promising idea to tackle this (not its bastard sibling that is "U"BI). Since it doesn't reduce the incentive structure to earn more with a job or occupation while not being forced to take a job that's wasting resources. Paying a man to dig up a hole just to fill it back up again or having him produce garbage that goes almost directly on the landfill might as well be paid without having to do any of that. >>83720 Based Silver Surfer.

J.C. Denton · 2024-09-07 13:25

>>83920 >Pollution is still a worse issue than a CO2 footprint They're pretty much the same issue. Less pollution implies less CO2 output in almost all cases. >and socialist countries have been the worst at that. I don't think India is socialist? It's really more that the countries (socialist and capitalist) that have sold their people into slavery are polluted as hell. >negative income tax I never heard of that but it sounds like a great idea.

Turner · 2024-09-07 16:38

>>83922 thats ridiculous dumping chemicals in rivers is pretty much carbon neutral but also a big problem if you do it and many do >>83920 >negative income tax at first I thought this was to give money most to the people who make it and take from those who're loosing but then I looked and its just wealth redistribution

Liet Kynes · 2024-09-07 17:24

>>78191 That's Frutiger Aero.

Agent Richard Gill · 2024-09-07 19:38

>>83920 Socialism is just a broad concept about some kind of cooperative effort. No socialist supports every form of if which is usually why they argue on what is socialism. Closest would be the EZLN controlled portion of Chiapas Mexico and Tito's Yugoslavia which was a sort of Market Socialism and he's well loved to this day in those regions. Reason why "communist" or "socialist" countries run into problems is any radical change in governance and industrialization always has issues to arise. Many people died during the industrial revolution directly as result of it, but does that mean technology is bad? No. The gulags of Russia werent even a communist thing they existed in the Tzarist Russia, Stalin only brought them back after Lenin got rid of them. The famine in China was result of the usual pattern of droughts in the region just look at the drought history, and Mao had some really dumb ideas on ecology, which easily could have been same if he had an anti socialist view. The US had suffered the same problems that occurred in China when it overcultivated the farms which resulted in the Dust Bowl and a mass famine. You have to look at things from a non ideological point of view to see ideology has little to do with these kind of issues. There also is always outside influence like US lead coups and cutting off trade. Marx would never have approved of any of the states that existed because he knew they would fail because they came prematurely to the conditions of the time and did not occur as a global phenomena plus he never spike of Vangaurd parties or any details on what communism should be, he died before writing anything on that he was more of a historical analysts and critic of classical economics. Pollution and greenhouse gasses are one in the same sometimes. For example ozone is a greenhouse gas and a pollutant. Ironically adding of ethanol to fuel to make it burn cleaner is actually less green because it was found out a while ago it creates more ozone gas. Ozone when it comes in contact with your body causes oxidative damage. The real tricky thing is plastic where on one hand it acts as a carbon trap but on the other hand microplastics and plastic pollution it is difficult to know the impact.

Bob Arctor · 2024-09-07 20:02

>>83923 >dumping chemicals in rivers is pretty much carbon neutral but also a big problem if you do it and many do Only if you don't factor in the impacts to the wildlife in and around the river. Dead foliage releases a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, often in the form of wildfire smoke, and carcasses release methane. Everything's connected, lain. >but then I looked and its just wealth redistribution Oh noooo the job creators might need to give up on their dreams of owning a second yacht. So unjust.

Nanashi No Gombe · 2024-09-07 20:23

>>83926 >Only if you don't factor in the impacts to the wildlife Everything is connected, but its connected in complicated ways, and you don't seem to understand how poor long term predictions can be. We don't really have the data to verify them anyway. Things might work out like you say, or maybe all that happens and then between the chemicals killing vegetation and the fire you get a big flood that wipes out a lot of soil from one area and plops it into a forest down stream burying it completely and in 100 or 150 years you're 'carbon negative'. Or more likely something else happens.

Morpheus · 2024-09-07 23:04

>>83927 >and you don't seem to understand how poor long term predictions can be The fact that bad long term predictions exist does not imply that all long term predictions are bad. Also, I wasn't making any long term predictions at all in my post; I just explained the (in my opinion, very obvious) ways in which polluting a river can also cause extra Co2 to enter the atmosphere. There is no point coming up with a hypothetical in which through sheer chance the action is 'carbon negative"; that's abit like postulating that the baby you ate would grow up to be a genocidal maniac so maybe it's good you ate him. The fact of the matter is that most forms of pollution and CO2 emissions are highly correlated and causally linked. Anyone serious about climate change must aso be serious about other forms of pollution and vice versa. I don't understand why this is such a frequent talking point. Do you really think any admission that CO2 emissions are bad will mean you have to forfeit your life to technocapital?

Lord Nikon · 2024-09-08 00:50

>>83932 >that's abit like postulating that the baby you ate would grow up to be a genocidal maniac so maybe it's good you ate him I never said polluting the river would be good I just said maybe it would be 'carbon negative' by a plausible but made up logic chain to rival your plausible but made up logic chain. Judging everything by its effect on atmospheric CO2 is a slippery slope that an unfortunate number of so called environmentalists have gotten stuck on. Sure too much CO2 is bad but it is not the totality of the problem. Can't we just agree that dumping tons of chemical garbage in the river is kinda a bad thing and so is dumping massive amounts of CO2 in the air (and so is babyphagy, even if they are definitely genocidal maniacs to be)? >>83926 Oh noooo the lazy imbecile might starve to death because he can't manage to get his life together. So sad.

Void · 2024-09-08 02:41

>>83933 >by a plausible but made up logic chain to rival your plausible but made up logic chain No, they're on massively different time scales. A dead forest releases carbon this year, a hypothetical forest in 100 years could store carbon 100 years from now. >Judging everything by its effect on atmospheric CO2 is a slippery slope I quite agree, but the carbon cycle is pretty fundamental to ecology, and it's pretty irrefutable that atmospheric CO2 releases are bad and should be limited -- if not because they almost certainly cause global warming, then because they are almost always associated with other forms of pollution and lower quality of life. Also, it's a nice number you can show to braindead politicians and twitter users that works as a half-decent proxy for a lot of things. Kind of like GDP and PPP in a way. >Can't we just agree that dumping tons of chemical garbage in the river is kinda a bad thing and so is dumping massive amounts of CO2 in the air You're the source of the disagreement here, my guy. We were never not in complete accordance on this, at least on the surface. >Oh noooo the lazy imbecile might starve to death because he can't manage to get his life together. So sad. See the difference here is that in my version, somebody's ability to afford luxury goods goes down, while in yours, somebody fuarrrking dies. Are these meant to be equivalent?

Hacker · 2024-09-08 06:13

>>83935 >atmospheric CO2 releases are bad because they are almost always associated with other forms of pollution and lower quality of life. CO2 is not pollution it is plant food. >See the difference here is that in my version, somebody's ability to afford luxury goods goes down, while in yours, somebody fuarrrking dies. We can't support our current population levels without fossil fuels. You're the genocidal one here not him.

Jens Hansen · 2024-09-08 07:24

>>83935 >We were never not in complete accordance on this that sounds like you're saying that you support polluting rivers and destroying ecosystems if it leads to lower levels of atmospheric carbon. Well do you ? Answer me straight mon ami. >Are these meant to be equivalent? I struggle to understand why you should be robbed to support me because I just decided to not do anything to support myself, and with no expectation that I do anything for you in return. Doing that is called charity, and its meant to be voluntary, a thing that nice people perhaps do because they want to help. What you're talking about, however, is theft with threat of violence. >>83938 >CO2 is not pollution it is plant food. and soil bound nitrogen isn't pollution its fertilizer, but dump a ton of it in a river and you'll cause a mess anyway and its still pollution. Atmospheric CO2 is necessary, but too much of it would destroy the entire ecosystem as we know it.

Koos van der Merwe · 2024-09-08 07:43

>>83940 >and soil bound nitrogen isn't pollution its fertilizer, but dump a ton of it in a river and you'll cause a mess anyway and its still pollution. It becomes pollution when you take it out of the ground and dump it somewhere it's not supposed to be in large quantities. Carbon dioxide is plant food, it is not air pollution by any legal or scientific definition. >Atmospheric CO2 is necessary, but too much of it would destroy the entire ecosystem as we know it. Too much oxygen would also destroy the entire ecosystem as we know it but oxygen is not a fuarrrking pollutant is it.

Linda Lee · 2024-09-08 08:27

>>83941 >>83941 >Too much oxygen would also destroy the entire ecosystem as we know it but oxygen is not a fuarrrking pollutant is it. it would be once there is already too much oxygen in the environment. "A pollutant or novel entity is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource."

Roger Pollack · 2024-09-08 08:46

>>83942 >it would be once there is already too much oxygen in the environment. The implication being that there is too much CO2 in the environment right now? This is literally a death cult. >A pollutant is a substance introduced into the environment that has undesired effects Speak for yourself. I don't think more plants and oxygen is an undesired effect.

Tomohisa "Tom" Kanezaki · 2024-09-08 10:39

>>83941 its tautological but too much of anything is bad. CO2 is necessary, remove all of it and you destroy the ecosystem. O2 likewise. But above a certain level of either becomes a problem and a pollutant.

Agent Richard Gill · 2024-09-08 10:44

>>83925 >socialists can't agree what real socialism is >every big change requires millions of eggs to be broken in order to make an omelette >either way it wasn't real socialism You know that you guys face the wall first whenever your revolution actually succeeds? The state will never wither away nor give away power. In reality any organization will try to maximize its influence and hold onto any gain. And any opposition to that will be crushed if there's an opportunity to it. Doesn't matter if it claims to be private, public or for the "greater good". You're striving to fix a problem by creating the same problem but much worse. >Nuuuh, but it's totally different you just don't understand! With my unique ideas this surely should work this time.. No it wont. People much smarter than you failed and "betrayed the revolution". How many times do we need to repeat that doomed experiment and leave lasting suffering until we can finally move on? >but it works for the Zapatistas, some part of 1930's Catalonia, Rojava, my local D&D party.. No it doesn't. It's a commune of Mexicans who prefer jungle anarchy over their soykafty Mexican government. The nation of Liechtenstein has like 10 times the output. Marx' ideas are ultimately nonsensical, non scalable, detached from reality, destined to fail and belong to be buried with the end of the 20th century and no number of mass murder is justified nor will usher in your utopia. And any of these supposedly anarchits movements really just create a power vacuum that at national scale gets filled by some more "pragmatic" and real politik despot who, with the newly created ruling class, ends up holding the entire population hostage while the idea of Solarpunk at the surface is supposed to be one of decentralization instead of centralized autocratic control. Creating a dictatorship of the Proletariat, either directly or by proxy of some Intelligencia, will not change anything. The regular guy is often just as sociopathic as our ruling elite with the only difference that they don't have the same means to force their will onto others. And people, from my observation, who seem themselves as some sort of socialist liberator either do not understand that or seek to benefit from the imprisonment of civilization that they're trying to bring into being. Don't bother responding. You will unlikely say anything that I haven't already heard before. Instead go and actually confront your ideas with individual incentives and human nature in mind. That is, if you're truly honest and well meaning with yourself and others. >>83923 >its just wealth redistribution Yes, that's what it is. However the problem that can be summarized as the Pareto principle outweights the problems it creates. Now I'm dissatisfied on what my taxes are wasted on or how the welfare state is running but in this case this is promising to avoid people being left with nothing or entire families losing their homes and end up on the street. And in order to get a job you need to be able to be fed, washed and dressed. A system based on tax refunds could be the least cancerous system to accomplish that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM This is not to be confused however with Universal Basic Income, which will unlikely remain truly universal while also apparently being a much worse spending program even if you can plot out the same graph as under the Negative Income Tax. Inequality is usually not an issue until it passes a point at which it starts growing worse exponentially until it crashes and tears everything down with it. It must be obvious at this point that I'm not an Accelerationist since that frankly doesn't work. If civilization falls apart and has to be painstakingly build back up again, with many pitfalls on the way (e.g. autocratic rule to restore stability) and in the best case end up at the same point with the same problems again thus instead we should reform while we can and stuff the leaks instead of making the boat sink faster and hope we get a new and better one this way. If you lose you don't somehow win. And it is a problem that while having increased efficiency of production and services we still somehow end up having to work longer with increasing demands. Often its even nothing more but busy work or bullshit jobs. Might as well simply provide some base subsistence at that point and free up creative resources to drive humanity forward. We don't need 20 sorts of milkshakes or look for ways to squeeze more money out of your clientele just to sustain your company's dead weight. Markets will adjust and reprioritize. Of course there's other issues like fixing the stupidity of Zoning Laws, introduce School Vouchers and democratize/decentralize Healthcare, but keeping wealth inequality at least somewhat at bay, that's an important topic we should address in the correct, or at least the least wrong way. >>83922 The contamination of soil, water and air with harmful substances that are not easy to remove appear to be a greater issue than the atmospheric CO2 content within a reasonable range. Meanwhile the whole CO2 panic smells like a way to exploit well meaning and gullible people into handing over the keys to their autonomy and industrial capacity for no reason really other than to centralize power and control. Look for the Dutch farmers are being treated for instance who are possibly using their little patch of land in the most efficient way that is practically manageable. Meanwhile Chinese farmers can't care enough to to irrigation properly but nobody cares. There's just too much self serving interest at play to believe in these things blindly while we can not just throw away all your tech and industry on a hunch. Deindustrialization is collectively suicidal since it destroys our ability to keep all the mouths fed. In fact, when it's cold then people will burn anything to stay warm. Tl;dr: don't fall for this Yoghurt Socialism psyop. The thing is, there's always going to be people who are willing sell the welfare or even survival of our species for short term personal gain. This is not a failure of le ebil cabidalism but of our own innate human nature when put in a high population density scenario which we just haven't evolved for. That is what we have to solve.

Wintermute · 2024-09-08 11:27

>>83945 >socialists can't agree what real socialism is Socialism is when the state owns the means of production and supposedly uses it for the benefit of "the people" or "the class" or "the aryan race". In reality the bureaucrats and central planners use the state owned means of production for personal gain and everyone who doesn't have political connections gets fuarrrked. >but it works for the Zapatistas, some part of 1930's Catalonia, Rojava, my local D&D party.. Voluntary communism is not sustainable. Sooner or later the productive people who are not being rewarded for their work will either leave or stop working so hard. That's why in practice socialism needs gulags and stasi and berlin walls. >I'm dissatisfied on what my taxes are wasted on or how the welfare state is running but in this case this is promising to avoid people being left with nothing or entire families losing their homes and end up on the street. In reality you're just subsidizing other people's bad decisions and enabling them to carry on and breed children who will make the same mistakes. The only reason welfare exists is the buy votes. Take $10 from Alice and give $5 to Bob and Eve. Yay democracy. >A system based on tax refunds could be the least cancerous system to accomplish that: The least cancerous way of providing a social safety net is with voluntary mutual aid societies or a personal insurance contract. Having the state involved in any way is guaranteed to corrupt it. >And it is a problem that while having increased efficiency of production and services we still somehow end up having to work longer with increasing demands. That's because money is not real. Everytime the state prints new money out of thin air and gives it to themselves that lowers the purchasing power of the money you and I actually work for. We're working harder and harder for money that is worth less and less. That's the problem. >Meanwhile the whole CO2 panic smells like a way to exploit well meaning and gullible people into handing over the keys to their autonomy and industrial capacity for no reason really other than to centralize power and control. I've read Greta's Climate Book. There is no science in it, it is literally the Communist Manifesto updated for the 21st century.

Drano · 2024-09-08 12:10

Doesn't matter how cool, in the know, or smart the userbase of a site, the second people start talking about socialism people start sounding like facebo*k bo*mers

Ein · 2024-09-08 12:15

>>83938 >CO2 is not pollution it is plant food. It is pollution and it's barely "plant food". It's not like plants are starving for atmospheric CO2 right now. >We can't support our current population levels without fossil fuels. Well, we have to do it sooner or later, so maybe instead of pretending the problem doesn't exist we get on it? >>83940 >that sounds like you're saying that you support polluting rivers and destroying ecosystems if it leads to lower levels of atmospheric carbon. Read it again then, that's not what I said. >Well do you ? No. >>83943 >The implication being that there is too much CO2 in the environment right now? There is. >>83945 >The contamination of soil, water and air with harmful substances that are not easy to remove appear to be a greater issue than the atmospheric CO2 content My entire point has been that actually any step you take to solve pollution is also a step to limit atmospheric CO2 releases, and many steps to limit atmospheric CO2 releases also lower other types of pollution, so you don't have to pick one or the other. The world is full of win-win situations. For instance, creating high-quality public transic networks and designing cities so that people don't need cars to get around, and perhaps even banning cars in the city center (a bold policy that a few towns have experimented with), is an example of a policy that lowers CO2 pollution along with tons of other types of pollution, while having immediate positive impacts on the community as well. >within a reasonable range. What's reasonable? I don't think the current amount of atmospheric CO2 reasonable. >Meanwhile Chinese farmers can't care enough to to irrigation properly but nobody See the thing is that a dutch law can only do something about dutch farmers. I don't really know about the specifics of your law (if you're dutch) or whether it's a good policy but this whole "uhhh China pollutes more!" thing is invariably a cover for lazy refusal to do anything about pollution. >There's just too much self serving interest at play to believe in these things blindly while we can not just throw away all your tech and industry on a hunch. I quite agree. Keep in mind this is the "solarpunk" thread, not the "primitivism" thread, I don't think there's an actual primitivist here. The question is not whether we should throw away all industry, it's whether we should lower our usage of, let's say, cheap single-use plastic goods, gasoline, and meat. All of those contribute massively to pollution of all types, it is not unthinkable to imagine a society that doesn't use them all that much, and it wouldn't be a huge hit to quality of life. We can also imagine cities and towns with more greenery, less traffic noise, more well-kept public spaces, places for the homeless to live outside of those public places so they don't throw trash everywhere. We can imagine a more intentional and custodial usage of our land. It's not hard to imagine.

Unnamed · 2024-09-08 12:22

>>83935 >A dead forest releases carbon this year, a hypothetical forest in 100 years could store carbon 100 years from now. a living forest does very little to sequester carbon, it represents a certain amount of stored carbon but it doesn't really collect significant amounts more, and. What you want is to grow forests and bury them, or something equivalent, if you want to remove atmospheric carbon.

Trinity · 2024-09-12 06:38

>>83912 just one question, who the fvck posted this?

Mandragola · 2024-09-12 06:59

Unspecified · 2024-09-13 04:02

Wintermute · 2024-09-13 05:26

>>84039 the site doesn't work

Morpheus · 2024-09-13 09:11

>>83948 >"uhhh China pollutes more!" thing is invariably a cover for lazy refusal to do anything about pollution. sounds like causus belli to me >The question is not whether we should throw away all industry, it's whether we should lower our usage of, let's say, cheap single-use plastic goods, gasoline, and meat I think depopulating certain regions + a sane eugenic policy is probably actually the way to go. Increase energy spent per capita while reducing dead weight headcount.

Yuki Nagato · 2024-09-13 09:47

>>83948 >It is pollution It is not air pollution by any legal or scientific definition. >it's barely "plant food". It's not like plants are starving for atmospheric CO2 right now. Farmers and gardeners buy bottled CO2 for exactly this reason. >Well, we have to do it sooner or later No we don't. That's the fallacy of inevitability. >so maybe instead of pretending the problem doesn't exist we get on it? You're free to do whatever you want. Unplug your computer and your phone and your refrigerator and spend your evenings reading Greta's Climate book by candlelight. Nobody is stopping you. <The implication being that there is too much CO2 in the environment right now? >There is. Whoever told you that is literally trying to kill you. >I don't think the current amount of atmospheric CO2 reasonable. That's because your head has been filled with propaganda. >this whole "uhhh China pollutes more!" thing is invariably a cover for lazy refusal to do anything about pollution What would you say to someone who says NATO needs to give up all their nukes. Russia and China and everyone else is fine but western countries need to commit military suicide. You see through this obvious ruse. But when someone says the West needs to deindustrialize. Russia and China and everyone else is fine but only western countries need to commit economic suicide. Why do you not see through that? >Keep in mind this is the "solarpunk" thread, not the "primitivism" thread, I don't think there's an actual primitivist here. And what do you do when your first batch of solar panels break and you don't have energy to manufacturer more. Not to mention how are you going to mine silver and rare earth metals without any diesel machinery. Things get very primitive very fast from there. >We can also imagine cities and towns with more greenery, less traffic noise, more well-kept public spaces, places for the homeless to live outside of those public places so they don't throw trash everywhere. If we can't do that now then why do you think leaping backwards 200 years on the technology ladder is going to achieve that? It's complete delusion. >>84042 >sounds like causus belli to me This is the 21st century equivalent of "we're going to invade you and convert you to our religion otherwise god will unleash doomsday". Humans are just monkey brains with advanced technology. >I think depopulating certain regions + a sane eugenic policy is probably actually the way to go. That's right purge the non-believers and make sacrifices to the CO2 god. The hilarious part is you think you're on the side of science.

Demeere · 2024-09-13 14:13

>>84043 >Farmers and gardeners buy bottled CO2 for exactly this reason. In some greenhouses maybe, and even then it's definitely not a necessity. Slightly faster plant growth does not mean that CO2 is somehow good and not a pollutant. It is a pollutant by any reasonable definition. >No we don't. So there's infinite oil? And all of it is worth the energy expenditure of extracting it? Wow, that's great, I wonder why people are so uppidy about it. >Unplug your computer and your phone and your refrigerator and spend your evenings reading Greta's Climate book by candlelight. Did you know there are ways to create electricity that don't depend on burning dead plants we dug up from the ground? Shocking, I know. >Whoever told you that is literally trying to kill you. How so? >What would you say to someone who says NATO needs to give up all their nukes. Russia and China and everyone else is fine but western countries need to commit military suicide For one, that's a bad analogy. Nukes are an offensive-only weapon, it's not like you can blow up a city with a coal power plant (except the one you built the power plant in, I guess -- did you know coal is the most deadly way to generate electricity by a wide margin?) Even if it were a good analogy, it still would be a straw man. China and Russia are obviously terrible polluters. But the rulers of the US are not the rulers of China, so they can't shut down a Chinese coal plant. They should be putting more pressure on the Chinese to do so, I agree. Also, banning highly polluting industrial processes such as burning/mining coal is not "economic suicide". Industry doesn't have to make the water dangerous to drink or the air dangerous to breathe, whoever told you that is literally trying to kill you. >And what do you do when your first batch of solar panels break and you don't have energy to manufacturer more. Not to mention how are you going to mine silver and rare earth metals without any diesel machinery. You do realize there is a middle ground between no industry at all and having more cars than people, right? Of course diesel trucks are indisensible in many situations, as are mines, and we can't make pollution go to zero. But we can certainly have a lot less internal combustion engines on the road and we can certainly pollute less, and it would be better. >If we can't do that now then why do you think leaping backwards 200 years on the technology ladder is going to achieve that? I explicitly disavowed that position in the post you're replying to, and I have not once even hinted at agreeing with it. the fact that you are so consistently attacking this straw man tells me that maybe your position is so feeble it could only hold up against someone even dumber than you.

Vasya Pupkin · 2024-09-13 18:25

>>84045 >Nukes are an offensive-only weapon totally absurd nukes are very versatile and much work has gone into planning strategies that use them in tactical and defensive situations. Early conventional bombing planning was very emphatic on pure strategic use but when actual war came that didn't last. Most US nuclear weapons are meant to be used strategically, and overseas, but the US retains a 'tactical' arsenal in the sub .5 mega ton range which can be launched from fighterjets, from what I can discern it is significantly in europe for use against russia. Nuclear weapons were prepared for anti air use should soviet bomber fleets attack the US, with US fighters launching air to air nuclear missiles into the enemy formations before turning tail and fleeing, though with the advent of the ICBM this situation is different, and small nuclear artillery shells were produced for similar use against soviet ground forces invading europe (pic related). These are no longer available but they are weapons with clear defensive application. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

Terzibashjian · 2024-09-14 07:27

>>84049 We can even make nuclear hand grenades/40mm tube variants that aren't specifically unfeasible or even difficult to make, more inherently cost prohibitive. Think "briefcase bomb taking out a city block" and understand that a device the size of a wristwatch can take out an entire hotel lobby; As the predominant strategem solicited this possibility, so did the Age of Information rise to the occasion of interception being the primary course of attack(Defense = Offense) insofar as it delineates an absolute vector of engagement or more sophisticated retaliation. The deterrent worked, and that it's no longer working means space lasers, basically. Don't like space lasers? Too fuarrrking bad. "Cost prohibitive" is functionally irrelevant to the tip of the spear, and both US/RUS didn't renew the small nuclear arms treaty.

John Titor · 2024-09-15 11:17

>>84045 >In some greenhouses maybe, and even then it's definitely not a necessity. It benefits the plants though. It is not harmful in any way. >So there's infinite oil? It depends what you mean by "we". There's certainly more than enough for our lifetimes. If you mean we as in humanity, because you and Elon Musk are so smart you know what humanity needs to do in 500 years then synthetic oil and gas would still probably be more viable than wind and solar nonsense. >Did you know there are ways to create electricity that don't depend on burning dead plants we dug up from the ground? Shocking, I know. Not enough for everyone though. You can do a little green energy larp by yourself to virtue signal to your white neighbors in your middle class suburb but to transition everyone off fossil fuels would cause catastrophic amounts of death and suffering. You either don't understand that or think you'll get special treatment for some reason. >that's a bad analogy. Nukes are an offensive-only weapon, it's not like you can blow up a city with a coal power plant You're not stupid you understand that if one side gives up their weapons that creates a permanent power imbalance, with the side who kept their weapons now calling the shots. The same thing will happen on an economic dimension if one side unilaterally gives up cheap effective power generation. >They should be putting more pressure on the Chinese to do so, I agree. The point is why do so-called climate activists not talk about China at all? They only care about disarming western countries. You should start asking why that is. >banning highly polluting industrial processes such as burning/mining coal is not "economic suicide" This is motte and bailey. You started with we must stop all atmospheric CO2 emissions and now you've retreated to we must stop burning dirty coal. Yes we can live without burning untreated coal specifically, that wasn't the point though was it. >whoever told you that is literally trying to kill you. I already told you do it. Live your principles. Unplug your refrigerator and connect it to a solar panel. See how long before you get food poisoning. Your propaganda addled brain does not comprehend the consequences of what you're saying. >But we can certainly have a lot less internal combustion engines on the road and we can certainly pollute less, and it would be better. And what's the cost? Again you are completely ignorant of the consequences. You think everything is going to stay the same except no more cars. Billions of people won't be able to get to work. Large areas of land will be uninhabitable, people will be forced to cram into cities when most western countries already have a housing crisis. It's more stupid one-dimensional fantasies. >I explicitly disavowed that position in the post you're replying to I understand you don't want end up at the bottom of the mountain but when you jump off a cliff that is where you will end up. Fossil fuels are the top of our current tech tree. Banning them will only push us backwards. Humanity is not going to magically jump forwards to Star Trek anti-matter drives or whatever you're imagining. >>84049 All weapons are defensive in the sense that just having them makes it harder for people to fuarrrk with you. >>84051 >We can even make nuclear hand grenades I think that's unlikely. You need a minimum amount of conventional explosives to trigger an explosive fission reaction. And those conventional explosives are probably too bulky to fit into a hand grenade let alone a wristwatch.

Judge Fang · 2024-09-15 11:33

>>84059 >co2 is what the plants crave well, I am not a plant. Its good up to a point, I'm not sure what the optimal level is but eventually you start making people drowsy and have other problems. It is possible to have too much of it, it is also possible to have to little of it, just something to be a bit worried about.

Unsigned · 2024-09-15 12:20

>>84059 We need less people. Save the planet - kill people.

Project 2501 · 2024-09-15 13:48

>>84059 >The point is why do so-called climate activists not talk about China at all? They only care about disarming western countries. You should start asking why that is. Greta already said it wasn't about the climate but about social structures. Al Gore too admitted it never was about global warming. Any green who oppose nuclear energy or who do not want massive public spending in both the construction of fission reactor and the R&D in fusion don't care about the climate or the end of fossil fuel. You don't need more information than that, you literally only have to check one thing and you know who is talking to you. >>84060 Do you eat plants or things that eat plants? If yes, more CO2 in the air is good for you. The only downside is that there is less 02, but given the expected quantity of fossil fuels, it should be fine. >>84062 Funny, the most powerful men in the world think the same thing.

Linda Lee · 2024-09-15 14:03

>>84064 >only downside is there is less O2 look if they were spraying huge amounts of O2 in the air I'd be a little concerned, too. O2 is great, without it I'll die, but on the other hand too much of it has probable health effects, raises fire hazards, etc etc. We need it, but we also shouldn't want to double the current concentration outside of controlled environments. CO2 is vital to everything in civilization, some more than we have might even be good all told; IDK where the optimum is. But enough CO2, even with enough O2 around, will actually put you to sleep and probably cause other problems.

Agent Smith · 2024-09-16 10:57

>>84066 We have evolved for 21% O2 and created our entire societies for that particular situation. If it was 40%, we would have to evolve again and to change a lot of things, but I guess it would be better at theend. Unless the corrosion make us die faster.

Six · 2024-09-16 21:54

>>84059 >It is not harmful in any way. False. >There's certainly more than enough for our lifetimes. And again I ask you whether all of that oil is worth digging up and using. I'd I spent 100J of energy to get fuel that gives me 50J of energy I'm wasting my time. >then synthetic oil and gas would still probably be more viable than wind and solar nonsense. Lmao you'll do anything to keep burning oil I guess. >Not enough for everyone though. France seems to be doing fine generating the majority of their power with nuclear plants. >but to transition everyone off fossil fuels would cause catastrophic amounts of death and suffering. You either don't understand that or think you'll get special treatment for some reason. You can't "understand" something that isn't based in fact. >The same thing will happen on an economic dimension if one side unilaterally gives up cheap effective power generation. First off, pollution is what is known as a negative externality and it has a huge economic cost, just one that cna be hard to measure because it is distributed throughout the whole populace. The fact that some countries just ignore it is probably why they're still soykafholes. Second, many forms of electricity generation are cheaper and more reliable then oil/coal. >The point is why do so-called climate activists not talk about China at all? They do, but they're not Chinese so constantly harping about CHYNA would be a waste of time. You've said you don't think we should be invading other countries to force them to stop polluting so maybe you could understand why people focus on domestic issues. >You started with we must stop all atmospheric CO2 emissionns Never said that once >now you've retreated to we must stop burning dirty coal. Not retreating to there either. All forms of pollution should be curtailed. Coal is an example of a technology that should just be abandoned except in very specific circumstances. Like CFCs. >Live your principles. Unplug your refrigerator and connect it to a solar panel. My principles are pretty pro-power grid. >You think everything is going to stay the same except no more cars No, I think they're going to be better, because cars can be replaced with other modes of transportation in many situations, and good urban planning can mean that long car trips can be avoided in many circumstances. >Large areas of land will be uninhabitable Why? Because people won't be able to make their forty minute commute from their paved-over swampland with no local economy? >people will be forced to cram into cities when most western countries already have a housing crisis Or maybe the suburbs could become real towns that aren't utterly dependent on daily commuters all individually heading to the city center at the same time every day in 10,000 separate death machines. >Fossil fuels are the top of our current tech tree. Thats fuarrrking depressing. So space ships, nuclear power plants, computers, refrigeration, antibiotics, all of them are not as good as the holy combustion engine. How pathetic, for a civilization to be unable to make any technological advances for decades. >Humanity is not going to magically jump forwards to Star Trek anti-matter drives or whatever you're imagining. Im literally imagining incremental, thought-out, deliberate change for the better, but you can't even accept that. You have to pretend like I want to make CO2 to go to zero, or that somehow if we decrease consumption it means that we'll be forced back into the stone ages. >>84064 I'm pretty dubious fusion power is going to be a thing in the near future. Fund the R&D yeah but it's not going to save us, and it's a far cry from being "zero waste" or "free" like people seem to think. Fission, on the other hand, is a fantastic investment and I'm all for building more fission plants right now. >>84081 We would all certainly die in the constant fires.

Nameless · 2024-10-05 02:05

>>78598 Green hydrogen is pure wonder fuel https://neuters.de/sustainability/climate-energy/latin-america-gears-up-clean-hydrogen-boom-road-is-not-smooth-2024-10-04/ If the only thing standing in the way is capitalism, it's because it'll durably revolutionize the world.

Joe Bloggs · 2024-10-05 10:01

>>84401 hydrogen is not a fuel its an energy storage device and not an overly wonderful one at that. It gets everywhere, it gets out of your tank, etc etc. When we get to Jupiter then it will be a fuel but till then its basically a battery. But battery powered things are OK.

Bob Arctor · 2024-10-08 15:03

>>84401 >Hydrogen boom I had to read it twice to be sure. If green hydrogen is so good, in a capitalist economy anyone who jump on the boat first will make a fortune.

Tank · 2024-10-08 15:25

>>84455 >neurosuggesting any of us live in a capitalist economy

fsociety · 2024-10-08 18:17

>>84456 Capitalism is the hierarchal control over the economy and people's personal lives by those with the most capital. Yes, we all are in a capitalist economy, Though if you want to be nit picky it's what is called a mixed economy.

Cowboy · 2024-10-08 19:14

>>84458 yes, and the goober mint owns a lot of capitol and control thigns higher arc ick ally I guess. mixed with pure undiluted an archie of people who jus do wut dey wunt provided the protection of goobermints. that what u meen ?

Lain Iwakura · 2024-10-08 20:11

>>84459 Go back to school kid.

Lord Nikon · 2024-10-08 22:38

>>84458 >>84455 Capitalism -> cap stone of the pyramid -> freemasonry. Capitalism and communism are the same, the freemasons up top eat the underlings and blame the "other side". They literally print the money, and they give it to whoever they want. Inflation is a tax.

Undisclosed · 2024-10-09 10:59

>>84094 >False. Not an argument. >And again I ask you whether all of that oil is worth digging up and using. Yes. The same people who said that New York would be underwater by 2012 said we would run out of oil by 1980. It's about time you realized they are lying for personal gain. >Lmao you'll do anything to keep burning oil I guess. It's the best fuel we've got. That's why you use it too despite your cognitive dissonance. >France seems to be doing fine generating the majority of their power with nuclear plants. We're not disagreeing about nuclear energy. >pollution is what is known as a negative externality and it has a huge economic cost, And CO2 doesn't have any economic cost. That's why the global warming cult has to create an artificial cost through taxes. >many forms of electricity generation are cheaper and more reliable then oil/coal. Not when you include the cost of manufacturing and deduct the price of subsidies. Wind turbines for example are a wash because the materials, labor and energy that goes into constructing them is barely recovered before they break down and cannot be recycled. The only form of electricity generation cheaper than fossil fuels is nuclear but it cannot be used for everything fossil fuels are used for. >They do, but they're not Chinese so constantly harping about CHYNA would be a waste of time China is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the next 9 counties combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Global warming rhetoric is only directed at specific countries because it is a form of economic warfare. >No, I think they're going to be better, because cars can be replaced with other modes of transportation in many situations, Modes of transportation monopolized by corporations and the state are not "better". You're going to find that out the hard way. >Why? Because people won't be able to make their forty minute commute from their paved-over swampland with no local economy? You talk like you think food magically teleports onto your local supermarket shelf. >Thats fuarrrking depressing. So space ships, nuclear power plants, computers, refrigeration, antibiotics, all of them are not as good as the holy combustion engine. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you city slicker. Without food trucks you will be starving within a matter of weeks. >Or maybe the suburbs could become real towns Explain to me what you think zero fossil fuel transportation looks like. No cars, no trucks, no trains, no airplanes. Sail powered boats, you want us to all to live by the sea? Or do you think Elon Musk's EV scam will save the day? Trucks with a 100 mile range, batteries that wear out after 3 years and require rare earth metals that cannot be mined without heavy (fossil fuel based) machinery? We're not in a position to leap over fossil fuels. The alternative is to go back to per-industrial technology. And per-industrial standard of life and population levels, which if you were paying attention you'd realize is exactly what malthusian neo-fuedal billionaires are trying to achieve with this global warming hoax. >Im literally imagining incremental, thought-out, deliberate change for the better, but you can't even accept that. I'm telling you to do it yourself before trying to force other people. You don't do any of this alternative energy, alternative lifestyle crap because it is objectively worse than what we have now. >>84458 >Capitalism is the hierarchal control over the economy and people's personal lives by those with the most capital. Capitalism is distributed free market competition. The centralized hierarchy you are describing is closer to socialism or fascism. This idea that people with capital somehow control your personal life is also completely wrong. What power does Apple or Tesla or Walmart have over your personal life? You understand that advertisements are corporations literally begging you to give them money. That's how little power they have over you. The only entity who has power over your personal life is the government, they are the ones who will rob you, kidnap you and murder you if you don't do what they want. And that power has nothing to do with capital. >Though if you want to be nit picky it's what is called a mixed economy. It's not "nit picky" to point out that the federal reserve trying to centrally plan the economy by manipulating interest rates of fake fiat currency is straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. As is progressive taxation and capital controls. >>84461 >They literally print the money, and they give it to whoever they want. Inflation is a tax. Fiat money and central banking is from Marx's Communist Manifesto. Hard money and throwing bankers out of helicopters is from Kiyosaki's Capitalist Manifesto.

The Phantom Phreak · 2024-10-09 12:42

>>84467 >Not an argument. Correct, it's a statement of fact. >The same people who said that New York would be underwater by 2012 said we would run out of oil by 1980. Other people (who are probably dead now) made wrong predictions in the past, thereforeall predictions (that I don't like) are wrong. Gotcha. >It's the best fuel we've got We actually don't have completely synthetic gasoline. You made it up. The closest thing there is is ethanol, and it's a really soykaf fuel. >We're not disagreeing about nuclear energy. No, we're disagreeing about how necessary it is to burn oil/gas/etc. Do you agree that uranium/thorium is a strictly better fuel in virtually all circumstances? The numbers speak for themselves. >And CO2 doesn't have any economic cost. It's a negative externality along with other pollutants (which, I must apparently say again, are almost always emitted along with CO2). Doesn't cost anything to the person polluting, but does to society. >Not when you include the cost of manufacturing and deduct the price of subsidies That's something you'll have to back up with hard numbers. Clearly other forms of power generation (such as nuclear) are still very economical despite not getting any subsidies. Also you need to do the same for your favorite dirty method, you might find that Exxon is pretty heavily subsidized too. >China is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the next 9 counties combined. It's like you don't read a single word I wrote. Let me break it down for you: how are you going to get China to stop polluting? Invade them? No, you have to force them to do it through economic means. Who can do that? Other countries that China is reliant on for their export-based economy. Oh look, it appears that policies which do this *also* tend lower pollution in our home, and vice versa! What a nice win-win! >Modes of transportation monopolized by corporations and the state are not "better". Sure thing. Let me just hop on my government-registered car, made by one of the five government-approved manufacturers, to drive on my government-owned roads, dodging all the people who really should not be driving, where a cop can pull be over and arrest me if he has "reasonable suspicion", to my government-mandated parking lot. Private transit companies do exist. In fact they used to compete, back before a bunch of corporations solved capitalism. Plenty of places still have independent buses that drive people around much the same way as a public bus does. There is no reason why transit has to be monopolized. I agree it shouldn't be. But it's not like cars are automatically more free. >Without food trucks you will be starving within a matter of weeks. Wow, maybe we should have food trucks then! I never thought of that! What does that have to do with people driving their sedans? >Explain to me what you think zero fossil fuel transportation looks like. Explain to me why you're fixated on this idea of "zero emissions". >I'm telling you to do it yourself before trying to force other people I'm already selling my car because I don't need it any more. I hate driving. But I'm pretty sure I'm not a grid operator, so I can't exactly " do it myself". >Capitalism is distributed free market competition. It hasn't been that way in decades. Capitalism, much like socialism, is a term used to describe an actually existing economic system, not an unimpeachable ideal. >The centralized hierarchy you are describing is closer to socialism or fascism. Inside any large business it is basically the same. >And that power has nothing to do with capital. *wheezing laughter*

Netrunner · 2024-10-09 13:32

I like that the commies can't even define capitalism, let alone communism. My point stay: if green hydrogen is so good, anyone who jump on the train early will make a fortune. Hey, that include you. >>84467 >China is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the next 9 counties combined. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Understanding this fact, acknowledging water as a greenhouse gas and understanding the capital importance of nuclear energy is what separate someone who want to mitigate climate change and a parrot. >>84469 >Other people (who are probably dead now) made wrong predictions in the past, thereforeall predictions (that I don't like) are wrong. Gotcha. As long as the alarmists of the present time don't acknowledge the mistakes of past alarmists and don't explain why they aren't making the same mistake, I won't even listen to what they have to say. Denounce Al Gore or I don't even care to hear you. You got me once because I was young, I have learn my lesson. >how are you going to get China to stop polluting? Invade them? No, you have to force them to do it through economic means. Who can do that? Other countries that China is reliant on for their export-based economy. Oh look, it appears that policies which do this *also* tend lower pollution in our home, and vice versa! What a nice win-win! You are assuming that our green laws apply to the imports and not exclusively to our national production. Most of the time its not the case. And when it is, it mean the small share of the Chinese pollution made to produce our soykaf will decrease, at a price for us. The rest of the pollution stay.

Crazy Jake · 2024-10-09 13:53

>>84471 >acknowledging water as a greenhouse gas It is, but it has a tendency to condense in to clouds and fall back down as rain, while methane and CO2 do not. > Al Gore or I don't even care to hear you. Sure whatever. He's a moron. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you swing all the way from "climate change will turn the earth in to Venus!" to "pollution is good, actually" >And when it is, it mean the small share of the Chinese pollution made to produce our soykaf will decrease, at a price for us. The rest of the pollution stay. Well, it's something. So is reducing local pollution. Why should we do nothing because somebody else is doing nothing? Do you also not help a drowning man because everyone else is just standing around watching? People ITT have been constantly saying how burning as much fossil fuels as China does is economically necessary but so far I've only seen evidence that burning *some amount* of fossil fuels is economically necessary.

Dozer · 2024-10-09 14:37

>>84471 >My point stay: if green hydrogen is so good, anyone who jump on the train early will make a fortune. Only in a free market. We don't have a free market, if your company doesn't have the right politics then you don't get "investment" from blackrock and you are regulated out of existence by the government. That's why Disney still has money to make their soykafty propaganda movies nobody watches and nuclear power companies can't get regulatory approval. It doesn't matter how good or bad your company is when central planners are putting their thumbs on the scale. >want to mitigate climate change How do you even know humans can change the weather. Just consume less and give up your freedom and centralize the economy under a group of "experts" and the weather will get gooder. Are you really buying that soykaf? >>84472 >Sure whatever. He's a moron. You didn't think he was a moron in 2001. And you don't think Greta or Soros are morons now. It's easy to now say Iraq was a mistake and they were obviously lying about WMDs. You have to spot the scam while it's happening not 20 years later.

Mitnick · 2024-10-09 14:58

>>84473 >That's why Disney still has money to make their soykafty propaganda movies nobody watches They make money hand over fist. Disney is on par with coca cola as one of the most recognizable and globally popular brands on earth. Do you seriously think they need to give a soykaf what blackrock thinks? They're responding to consumers demanding that companies pay lip service to social justice causes. Very easy for them to do without actually changing their business practices. >How do you even know humans can change the weather. What is acid rain? What is cloud seeding? What is the urban heat island effect? >Just consume less Is that supposed to be dystopian? I'd love to consume less. I'd love for my things to be repairable rather than disposable garbage (which 90% of greenwashed stuff is anyway. Notice how stores are giving out soykafty "reusable" bags now? I used to reuse grocery bags to pick up dog poop, they were great). But then the numbers might stop going up. The horror! >You didn't think he was a moron in 2001 I was five years old in 2001. You're just making up a guy to get mad at. >And you don't think Greta or Soros are morons now. I think Soros is actually quite intelligent, if evil. Why would you think I have any love for that man? And I don't think I've ever actually heard Greta Thunburg's voice or read anything she's written. >It's easy to now say Iraq was a mistake and they were obviously lying about WMDs From what I've heard, it was also easy at the time.

Ivan Horvat · 2024-10-10 02:15

People knew iraq was fake long before wmd nonsense because the initial justification for attacking iraq was terrorists but the terrorists werent from iraq... oil fields got memed pretty hard as the real root cause. So it was obvious even to onlookers they were making soykaf up to attack.

Case · 2024-10-10 09:03

>>84478 the terrorists were from all over, you might as well invade germany or whatever. If you were credulous at the time you'd have accepted that us intelligence had rightly determined the major nodes or the terroristic funding and coordination network and was attacking those. Obviously maybe the right thing to do would be let in fewer muslims but how horrible would that be right?

William Holtzer · 2024-10-10 10:55

>>84484 Not random terrorists, 911 terrorists, they used the attack immediately as justification to attack iraq and none of those guys involved were from iraq. That aside pretty sure you had 0 terrorists from germany. Terrorism as a whole was merely arabs retaliating after murrica +friends invaded them. Germany&france got terrorist attacks because they also were involved.

HELIOS · 2024-10-10 13:13

>>84485 if a bunch of americans hang out in guatemala and use it as a base whence to launch their raucous romps through all of south america and caribbea, and I want to stop them I am not going to attack Tennessee, whence most of them originate, nor am I going to attack Indiana because the several of the group are known to have met at Purdue. If I want to stop them, I need to go to Guatemala. Of course if I go there maybe they'll just leave because thats easy when you're a sort of loose sub-state organization. Im not saying attacking Irak is the correct thing to do, nor that it was not motivated in by objectives other than crushing the terrorists, but there's absolutely a line of reasoning that can make it far more reasonable than attacking Yemen, where quite a few of the hijackers are said to be from, or Germany where several of them met.

Yet Another Lainon · 2024-10-10 13:20

>>84472 That's a start. now, explain why Al Gore was an alarmist who was wrong yet was presented as being the embodiment of science by every media. Once you have done this, explain why this isn't the case with modern alarmists. Then and only then I will consider changing my mind. >Why should we do nothing because somebody else is doing nothing? Because no matter what we do, if we do it alone it will fail. Trying harder will fail. Falling into poverty will fail. You are lowering my quality of life for something that you know won't work and you refuse to look for a way that will work. I have to deduce things from those facts. If only I rescue a drowning man, he is saved. If only the west try to save the climate, no matter how hard, it won't be saved. >>84473 Blackrock have no power outside of the west. The brics aren't doing green hydrogen either. >>84474 Disney loose tens if not hundreds of millions at every movie. If their investors wanted to make money, they would sell or tell them to make money, not propaganda. But their investors do give them money and do tell them to produce propaganda that don't sell. Because you are not their customers, investment funds are. The ideas in your heads are their products. >>84485 France had random Islamist attacks in the 90's. If you have muslims and aren't a police state, you have terrorism.

Hiro Protagonist · 2024-10-10 13:56

>>84488 >do this random ideological purity test that I demand of you sounds like a waste of my time. >Then and only then I will consider changing my mind. Change your mind based on evidence and logic, not this touchy-feely bullshit. >Because no matter what we do, if we do it alone it will fail. Fail at what? Reducing pollution in our own country? Reducing our reliance on foreign imports? Reducing our reliance on oil that may or may not still be cheap in 50 years? Preserving natural resources that we all implicitly rely on? Helping our still-massive sphere of influence to stabilize their own countries and reduce immigration? What about this relies on China's cooperation? Or is this some "net zero" bullshit again, where EVERYONE has to do EVERYTHING or it's ALL FOR NOTHING? Give me a break. Is that how you do things in your own life too? Is your excuse always that nobody else is solving problems so you're going to sit on your ass? > You are lowering my quality of life How would your quality of life be lowered? Because you can't sit in traffic in your lifted hummer every day? Because maybe you might have to eat a little healthier instead of having a tenth of a cow every year? So far you've just made apocalyptic end-of-the-world predictions based on the idea that fossil fuel burning goes to absolute zero, which is unrealistic. > for something that you know won't work Why won't it work? What won't work? Stop being vague. >and you refuse to look for a way that will work I look all the time. But you keep telling me not to. You keep telling me "no, don't try". > If only the west try to save the climate, no matter how hard, it won't be saved. The climate's fuarrrked one way or another. Even if everyone cooperated we're still dealing with the problems right now that nobody did anything about twenty years ago. The question is how much worse it gets. We can do something to prevent it from getting more than a certain amount worse. Why shouldn't we, especially when there are so many indirect benefits to doing so? >Disney loose tens if not hundreds of millions at every movie And yet they make billions in profits https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/gross-profit . I'm willing to bet your source for this is "some guy on the internet told me"

Donna Hawthorne · 2024-10-10 14:30

>>84489 >We can do something to prevent it from getting more than a certain amount worse. Sorry, this is poorly phrased. Meant something more like "to not contribute to an increased rate of worsening".

Unnamed · 2024-10-10 18:47

>>84489 >How would your quality of life be lowered? Because you can't sit in traffic in your lifted hummer every day? >Because maybe you might have to eat a little healthier instead of having a tenth of a cow every year? Not him, but if you look at most of the interventions suggested like this, the impact even extrapolated to the full population is trifling. And then you get tricky things like low-flush toilets which possibly don't even reduce water use because they work so much less well. If things are as dire as climate nuts say the solution is not 'maybe carpool' or 'keep the lights off when you're not using them' or 'turn your AC on less'. If things are as dire as climate nuts say the solution must be much more radical than that. >eating beef is unhealthy say that to my face and not online and see what happens

Drano · 2024-10-11 13:29

>>84489 Evidence show that journos gave their time to the most alarmist scientific studies and had no time for more reasonable takes. Logic dictate that the same thing must be happening now. Your turn. >Reducing pollution in our own country? Does I have to remind you that the goal is to stop climate change? This is why we don't have time to build nuclear power plants or to invest in fusion. If we don't change our grid before 2000, the world will end. I meant 2010. No, 2020. Okay, this time it's 2030. My final word is 2040. It's not about everyone doing everything but about the one country that pretty much do it all on its own to do its share. >to stabilize their own countries and reduce immigration? The only reason why we have immigration is because our corpos want a surplus of labor and politicians obey them. They say we simply have to make every single country rich and have world peace forever to end immigration while all it take is to sign an agreement with any third world country and ship every illegal there after one year of public service.

Turner · 2024-10-11 13:37

Part 2 'cause the bot don't like something in my post. >How would your quality of life be lowered? Heavy taxes is one thing. The industry is gone, the EU now come for the agriculture and want to kill it. A good portion of people can't heat their home anymore. Going on vacation become hard. I suppose when you are in the upper middle class you don't see it and you think that you don't need that much. People suffer from this mentality. Having less when you swim in pointless surplus is healthy. Having less when you struggle to make ends meet isn't.

Rick Deckard · 2024-10-11 17:19

>>84497 >but if you look at most of the interventions suggested like this, the impact even extrapolated to the full population is trifling. A significant reduction of number of cars on the road (replaced with either mass transit or slowly changing urban designs to enable shorter trips) would be a pretty big change. So would a reduction of meat production by half. And, as I've been saying this whole time, reducing CO2 emissions isn't even necessarily the greatest benefit of such policies, and over-optimizing for a single variable like that is bound to get you nowhere. >And then you get tricky things like low-flush toilets which possibly don't even reduce water use because they work so much less well. Yeah, one obviously has to think these policies through. >>eating beef is unhealthy if you're eating lean steaks all the time then sure it's healthy. But most of the beef I can afford is garbage-grade and indeed, is quite unhealthy. >>84505 >Evidence show that journos gave their time to the most alarmist scientific studies and had no time for more reasonable takes. >Logic dictate that the same thing must be happening now. Get your scientific opinions from scientific evidence. >Does I have to remind you that the goal is to stop climate change? Maybe that's the only goal you care about. I think anything that makes our societies less soykaf is worth doing. >This is why we don't have time to build nuclear power plants Yes we do >or to invest in fusion Fusion is always twenty years away. It's still pie-in-the-sky stage. >the world will end Nope, it'll just be soykaf. I'd rather it doesn't become soykaf. >The only reason why we have immigration is because our corpos want a surplus of labor and politicians obey them That's not the only reason. Those people are leaving their homelands for a reason, it's not just because George Soros came through and started handing them checks. >They say we simply have to make every single country rich and have world peace forever to end immigration Or maybe just stop doing coups every time someone gets in power that isn't friendly to your economic regime. Maybe stop putting entire countries into "austerity". >It's not about everyone doing everything but about the one country that pretty much do it all on its own to do its share. Okay. But you've expressed that you don't think it's okay to do invade them for it. You've expressed you're not okay with economic sanctions for them (for some reason). In fact it seems that you'd rather that nobody do anything to try and make them do their fair share. So you just sit around and complain? >A good portion of people can't heat their home anymore. Because you're reliant on natural gas imports from the east, numbnuts. >Having less when you swim in pointless surplus is healthy. Having less when you struggle to make ends meet isn't. I quite agree! That's why I'm all for policies that place most of the onus on those that can afford to cut back a bit, while providing good alternatives to people that can't.

Neuromancer · 2024-10-12 10:51

>>84489 That's odd, I don't have the same numbers. I know they like to play with numbers to fraud taxes, show sharholders that all is good and employees that they can't have a raise, but still. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273556/net-income-of-the-walt-disney-company/

Yuki Nagato · 2024-10-13 16:00

There's a joke that starts like that; >Solarpunk...

Unsigned · 2024-10-13 16:53

>>79702 >Nuclear plants aren't being shut down to make room for solar or wind farms Depends on which country you're looking at. You also don't need to shut them down but merely reduce their power production artificially to pretend people need a better alternative while the price of each KW goes up when it comes out of a nuclear plant following the shortening of their monthly production. >>79726 The optimistic futures back then were absolutely ''not'' based on anything "solar". They all bet on even more powerful energy production systems when they simply didn't outright come up with bullshitium substances for their advanced futuristic power plants. You are trying way too hard to backforce your baby food solarpunk into past culture. >>79727 >Solarpunk, being relatively new, is informed by exactly the same recent trends and zeitgeist as tradlarp memes are. Tradlarp memes don't align with cultural and ethnical chobanni soykaf or with any obsession on using bird-killing windmills or impossible to recycle wind and solar technologies. >Solarpunk is the mirror image of cyberpunk. It is the aesthetic where you ask "what if we won?". Won against what or who exactly? >>79748 >They have deluded themselves into thinking they might benefit from the present system, so they feel threatened at the prospect of people trying to escape it. "They" has actually never said the current world was anywhere in good shape, but merely laughed at your supposed greener better alternativer future. >>79901 >Sorry lain but when there's no capitalism you actually work for a single company that is the State. Yeah it's soul-crushing and everything but in fact people should be encourage to be self-employed and self-educated or something, not bring us back the fuarrrking Communist nightmare again. Fine but I don't recall where in Capitalism people were encouraged to be self-employed and self-educated when the most efficient Capitalism aims at having all people work for soykaf wages in one big corp while being blended into a chaotic global monoculture of some sort so we can all eat the same international soykaf while watching the same international Disney/Amazon/Netflix turd. >>79902 >Did you mean carbon dioxide? It doesnt do that on it's own it needs plants or some other chemical process to do that and they have a limited capacity to do so. How many plants are there in the world, not counting all the green soykaf in oceans, to cover the world production of the so called global and world ending poison called carbon dioxide? And wouldn't planting more trees quickly solve any potential excess of CO2 yearly production? >Globalism isnt a real political ideology but is just a buzzword created out of cope trying to pretend globalization isnt just a direct result of a more connected world from technological advances combined with transglobal mega corporations trying to maximize profits which existence of themselves are a natural result of the competition focus of capitalism and this interacts with bribery / lobbying where the wealthy capitalists help influence geopolitics. "Transglobal MCs" is exactly that, globalism. They're growing as trusts and follow the same guidelines for the most part, which are motivated by political plans for a specific kind of people, not by mere greed. But by conveniently pretending it's all about greed we can be served the same old pseudo solution of Marxism, this time with a new green paint job.

Void · 2024-10-13 17:45

>>84561 >Tradlarp memes don't align with cultural and ethnical chobanni soykaf or with any obsession on using bird-killing windmills or impossible to recycle wind and solar technologies. That's at the surface level though, and comes down to political flavor. The underlying desires, as well as many of the specific aesthetic choices (e.g. rural setting, mason jars) are nearly identical. >Won against what or who exactly? Capitalism, I guess. Doesn't seem to be a very salient point. >How many plants are there in the world, not counting all the green soykaf in oceans, to cover the world production of the so called global and world ending poison called carbon dioxide? And wouldn't planting more trees quickly solve any potential excess of CO2 yearly production? Seems some answers to your questions are in this article https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions >which are motivated by political plans for a specific kind of people, not by mere greed Source: seems true, and also ESG is DEFINITELY a spooky conspiracy by (((them))) and not a way to quantify the financial risk of political intervention as environmentalism and social justice become more popular.

Nobody important · 2024-10-13 17:50

>>80028 >Globalization is at its core about taking over foreign countries homegrown industries. Most of Africa doesn't have "homegrown" industries. They're for the most part European and now Chinese with bits of other Asians nations timidly venturing in. >>80029 >Capitalism is gay as fuarrrk, because it overly stresses the importance of ownership, and people think that it somehow means that a nation is a "property." Capitalism doesn't care about the topic of property applied to a nation until it's used as collateral for debt. It's people who care about their nation and see their land as their property. In the end, a property is either protected by law or by force. >From a political standpoint, governments have been mattering less and less for the last 50 years, and so the idea that countries have robust borders to defend an ideologically and linguistically similar society is greatly outdated. The people who want these borders to be protected are not represented by their governments, that for the most part follow globalist schemes. Globalism enjoys moving people as assets. People don't enjoy being treated like assets. >>80040 Each decade saw its scare. They modified their equations to make them fit with a global natural trend. When you look at the big claims of the past, in the 60s and later, they would speak of a global freezing. Their predictions have been regularly feeble and silly. As for the physics, we have little power over them. Sea levels rising? Really? Like the lainanon here >>80058 who goes to quote the press, when huge cities are built or expanded as we speak with their floor level almost literally flush with the current sea level? Why would they do that if we supposedly knew for decades that sea levels were dangerously rising? >>80044 >When driving across the country I barely see landscapes which are not plastered with wind and solar installations, yet electricity is becoming more expensive. It's because it's offset by infilation related to debt (which got worse after the "management" of the latest verrrrry deadly totally-not-the-flu), the increase of spending in useless sectors, the freezing of wages since the early 70s (which is exactly when the national debts took a turn for the worse for many countries, surprise surprise) and very recently a certain war which has conveniently destroyed a whole economic balance. >And it's a fact that my country appears to have made a terrible mistake putting all its eggs into that one basket due to the "greens" here having gotten their imbecilic way. The greens are the front pieces, the useful idiots to push for a global sabotage of our economies while using ecology as an excuse to lower liberties wholesale. >>80065 >But I noticed that weather casts have stopped using a sun wearing shades and instead paint the region red or black like it's a fallout zone whenever the temperature goes above 30C. They do that in my country too. It's been going on for a few years already. Part of the propaganda. The exact same casual summer temperatures, at the exact same periods of the year, are now "high danger" "big red death" temperatures. It's very contrasted instead of the soft gradient that was used for decades before that. Obviously used to scare people. Luckily you can see that many people don't fall for that blatant manipulative soykaf. >>80109 >A house isn't a border. Even in tribes where they basically have no walls they have an idea of privacy of personal space. A homogenous people can be seen as an extended family. It fits. >You're making an argument that was never made. Communism is just a very vague term that could mean any economic system that comes after capitalism. Moving out of capitalism doesn't mean it will automatically translate into communism. It would be like swapping one poison for another. >>80128 >Give me one reason to care about the biodiversity in the rainforest. Don't care about the diversity then, care about the tree mass at least. >>83725 >To be fair, if you're referring to the Fukushima disaster, that was also caused by a major known design flaw. Which was what if I may ask?

The Oracle · 2024-10-13 18:06

>>84564 >If you look at the big claims of the past, in the 60s and later, they would speak of a global freezing. People also used to think t Rex walked upright with its tail dragging behind it. You're really judging an entire field by some short-lived hypotheses from its infancy? >Their predictions have been regularly feeble and silly. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ Look at their sources, decide for yourself how "feeble" they are. >Why would they do that if we supposedly knew for decades that sea levels were dangerously rising? Why do people set off fireworks during extreme droughts? Why do people build houses on cliffs that erode by multiple feet per decade? Because people are stupid and don't plan ahead. >Which was what if I may ask? There was a coolant pump in the basement. If I remember correctly, many reviews had stated the pump was vulnerable to flooding, and nothing was done about it. Guess what broke and caused the disaster?

Arisu Mizuki · 2024-10-13 18:12

>>84564 >care about the tree mass at least. under climate change theory treemass isnt the problem its subterranean biomass primarily but really bulk stored biomass wherever, forests are small storage facilities but they don't really build up to a good extent. Who cares about trees bury algae or bamboo or baboons or something it really doesn't matter just so long as it goes out of circulation for a long long time.

BloodCat · 2024-10-14 02:51

>>84563 >article It is not providing necessary information such as the net and averaged intake of CO2 during a tree's life in North America for example, how much it absorbs vs how much it releases while alive. It also hinges around the idea that CO2 has a significant effect on world temperatures just as it requires to be taken as true that the CO2 released by human activity is even relevant. Although temperatures are globally on the rise (it seems) we are yet to be sure that humans are anywhere responsible. Meanwhile, as evidenced by the little technical innuendo earlier explained by >>80011 we are definitely subjected to a manipulation of the language so that "carbon" is the enemy. The only explanation given as to why this goes is because it's faster to say it, more practical. More practical within a dialectic upheaval that is confusing and chaotic. But carbon is life, it is not anti-life, yet the brainwashing repeats that carbon is a problem, it implies it heavily because we must fight against carbon which can be understood as fight against carbon life, which in the age of aggressively pushed transhumanism is one big coincidence I presume. It doesn't change the fact that people who properly debunk this entire craze are completely silenced. This is just the NewChurch. It's a new sin. We are responsible for Climate Change, we are destroying our own work and even damaging the planet! Think of the coastlines! Think of the coral and the biodiversity! Yet the planet has seen far worse and not only survived but life prevailed, even at times when humans already existed and had built large cities. And >>83948 is already a devout follower. Yet we do come to some form of agreement on the idea that people may consume too much meat ''to some extent'' in that contrary to the true pastoral life or the very distant Steppes life, people consume poor quality meat at every meal while not focusing on lesser quantities but of higher quality. Less plastics and less gasoline that releases truely polluting particles is also a good thing. But the desire for a meaningful and serious ecology is hijacked, it's parasited: good ideas are mixed to true poison and we always find the same culprits behind this ''modus operandi''. >>83945 >Yoghurt Socialism psyop. A clever way to put it. I love how in human history it would be impossible to make the connection between yoghurt and this nonsense if it weren't for that yoghurt ad that is selling the "vision" and has become a staple of solarpunk. https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-tree-absorb It is humorous that as an official statement by an international organization such as the EEA that says that a mature tree absorbs 48 pounds of CO2 per year is indeed repeated without caring much about the evidence, however it is hypocrite to suddenly heal our collective blindness when it comes to attacking debunkers while the rest of the year we're told to follow the narrative blindy despite it being delivered by equally serious, prestigious and humongous international organizations that all supposedly strive for our well being. The articles follows a much more modest figure: >To determine the amount of carbon dioxide a tree can absorb, we combine average planting densities with a conservative estimate of carbon per hectare to estimate that the average tree absorbs an average of 10 kilograms, or 22 pounds, of carbon dioxide per year for the first 20 years. This was determined by reviewing the planting density of our projects around the world, with an average planting density rate of 1,000/trees per hectare. >With carbon estimates, we like to err on the side of being conservative to avoid over inflating the potential benefits, which is why we selected 10 tons per hectare per year. Dividing 10 tons per hectare by 1,000 trees per hectare gets us an average value of 10 kilograms/22 pounds per tree per year. This is a little less than half of the commonly cited 48 pounds per tree per year, which gives us confidence that we are in the same ballpark as the accepted, de facto number, but are now being more conservative, and have a way to back it up. For the first twenty years. At what time is a tree supposed to be mature? How long do these trees live? What about the other years after the first two decades? If the absorption is strictly or massively constricted to growth, then what happens next when the trees reach their highest size? What about trees that produce leaves that fall and dissolve into the ground? How much CO2 is released that way? Is it taken into account in a tree's life or pulled aside as another metrics? What about trees that die? How many are replaced? At what rate? To give us a large margin we should go even below the conservative value and halve it by using 5 tons of sequestrated CO2 per hectare of a thousand trees, meaning eleven pounds (five kilograms) of absorbed CO2 a year. If the worldwide CO2 emission is of 37 billion tons, which seems to be the figure agree on, then we would need 7.4 billion hectares of already grown trees on the planet. The climate portal says we have about four billion hectares around the world right now. But most of the areas in Europe and the United States are quite heavily forested. Canada is full of them like many other countries in South America. But there are countries that have very little forested areas yet they are very populated and live and consume resources like we do despite not having the resources to absorb their own dioxide carbon releases. Why should the forested nations pay for them? Shouldn't we force them to return a pre-industrial life? Instead we're made to pay for their excesses. We've been told to cry about the oil wars and the stealing of resources but we're never told to cry about the forest wars and how our own forested areas have seldom been considered a very important resource that has a real value which we should have already leveraged. Literally, no trees? No right to produce CO2. As simple as that. They should be the ones forced to pay taxes, tariffs and bonds, not us.

Tequila · 2024-10-14 03:16

>localised nuclear fusion engine has no effect on the weather

Miho Iwakura · 2024-10-14 03:30

>>84578 How does a comet and the nuclear fusion's effect on the weather relate to each other? I fail to see the connection.

Motoko Kusanagi · 2024-10-14 03:50

>>84578 i feel like a nuclear fusion would do more than just effect the weather

Drifter · 2024-10-14 04:13

>>84582 I just chose the most recent CME gif, I don't think a comet could effect the earths weather unless it were closer than the moon. I suppose if a CME were powerful enough, it might alter the comets trajectory enough to be an issue, but then we'd certainly have more concerning things at hand. >>84584 Sporadic mutation being one of them, I assume?

The Phantom Phreak · 2024-10-14 12:11

>>84577 >It is not providing necessary information such as the net and averaged intake of CO2 during a tree's life in North America for example, how much it absorbs vs how much it releases while alive. Based on the words in the article, the amount of atmospheric carbon stored in a tree is directly related to the mass of the tree, and almost all of it is released into the atmosphere by decomposers after the tree dies and falls down. That is a lot more specific than an averaged net number, and would allow you to do much more accurate calculations using your own assumptions. >It also hinges around the idea that CO2 has a significant effect on world temperatures just as it requires to be taken as true that the CO2 released by human activity is even relevant. The question of how much carbon a forest stores does not "hinge" on the importance of carbon. It is of in dependent scientific interest. >Although temperatures are globally on the rise (it seems) we are yet to be sure that humans are anywhere responsible *you* are not yet sure. I have a question: what evidence, if any, would convince you? What experiment could someone do to prove to you that humans are causing global warming? >fight against carbon The reason we're talking about "carbon stored" and not "carbon dioxide stored" is that the carbon dioxide is not stored by a tree. Carbon is stored by a tree. Also carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas, methane is worse. >carbon is life *life is based on carbon. I shouldn't have to explain why carbon is not automatically good. > the planet has seen far worse and not only survived but life prevailed, even at times when humans already existed and had built large cities. Humans have never built cities as large as they are today. Humans are also the first to industrialize, which has fundamentally changed our way of life and how we use natural resources. The question isn't really about whether the planet or the biosphere survives. It's just a mass extinction event. The question is whether *humans* can survive with some kind of industrial or post-industrial civilization, instead of starting over as savages in a fundamentally less hospitable world. >But most of the areas in Europe and the United States are quite heavily forested. No? Look at a satellite map of the US, most of it is farmland. It's been estimated that the US loses almost a million hectares of forest a year. And as I have had to repeat in every fuarrrking post in this thread, CO2 is not the only reason why pollution from fossil fuel sources is bad.

Pulse · 2024-10-16 03:56

>>84595 >Based on the words in the article, the amount of atmospheric carbon stored in a tree is directly related to the mass of the tree, and almost all of it is released into the atmosphere by decomposers after the tree dies and falls down. A dead tree will barely decompose. In my area I stil have trunks standing up or lying down that fell even before I was born. They can also stay stuck below waters and not decompose either. Their carbon is released when they're burnt. There is literally no other way to release the carbon and with nuclear power we're not even needing much wood to warm ourselves up in our homes and flats. >The question of how much carbon a forest stores does not "hinge" on the importance of carbon. It is of in dependent scientific interest. This is not even related to what you quoted. >I have a question: what evidence, if any, would convince you? I would be convinced once we would allow dissenting scientists to be given a voice, to expose ''their'' evidence and logic for all to see. I'd be convinced when the global authorities would stop shoving GIEC numbers down our throats when we know the same GIEC got caughts hands in the jar more than a decade ago manipulating the numbers. I'd trust the numbers when I would really have the proof that world wide authorities are not lying and really care about us, which is not going to happen any time soon based on the objective evidence of them just taking immense pleasure fuarrrking up everything around us. >What experiment could someone do to prove to you that humans are causing global warming? An experiment wouldn't scale up enough to prove the magnitude of the claim. What you would need to prove with tons of local and global data that cover vast swathes of time is: 1. evidence that carbon dioxide does significantly contribute to the warming of this world and that it has nothing to do with the sun. 2. proving how western and then global human industrial activity significantly contributes to the increase of the world wide dioxide carbon in comparison to the natural quantity of CO2 in the air and in comparison to all the other gases in the same atmosphere. >The reason we're talking about "carbon stored" and not "carbon dioxide stored" is that the carbon dioxide is not stored by a tree. Carbon is stored by a tree. It's absorbed while in the form of carbon dioxide and we humans are accused of producing unhealthy amounts of this carbon dioxide, and it's not carbon on its own that heats up the planet supposedly, it's the carbon dioxide. Carbon isn't the problem, it's the dioxide, yet the debate and lexicon is totally tilted towards the world being engaged in a war on carbon. Carbon stays in dead trees, carbon is not the culprit. This slight of hand is simply not acceptable. Carbon is not and will never be a problem, for us, for the planet, for anything. The manipulation of the language is gross, blatant and abusive. >I shouldn't have to explain why carbon is not automatically good. Huh, lead isn't a problem either until you get a piece of it flying through your skull. But you should definitely have to explain why carbon is bad and why we have to wage a war against carbon. Where I live I'm literally surrounded by tons of carbon in its most natural way, stored in millions of different forms, and I'm not dying on the spot because of it lol. >It's just a mass extinction event. Nonsense. We've been heavily industrialized for many decades, a full century for some nations, we have never remotely approached a billionth of the effects of what would pass as a mass extinction event. This is just cringe alarmist crap. >The question is whether *humans* can survive with some kind of industrial or post-industrial civilization, instead of starting over as savages in a fundamentally less hospitable world. Yes we can. >No? Look at a satellite map of the US, most of it is farmland. It's been estimated that the US loses almost a million hectares of forest a year. Sorry, wrong wording. The areas in the US and Europe are some of the most forested in the world. Canada is literally Pine: The Land. Crop fields require CO2 to grow, they don't grow like trees but they're renewed every year and what is produced is for the most part not burnt but turned into biological waste that goes directly into the ground. >And as I have had to repeat in every fuarrrking post in this thread, CO2 is not the only reason why pollution from fossil fuel sources is bad. True but these other issues have been completely sidelined in the war against carbon.

Lady 3Jane.. · 2024-10-16 11:23

>>84631 >A dead tree will barely decompose. But it will decompose. The speed at which it decomposes depends on a lot of factors, and I guess sometimes it could become petrified, but dead trees absolutely do decompose unless you're in some super- inhospitable desert. Fungi will begin eating it within days and will continue to eat it until the cellulose is broken down and it's no longer recognizable as wood. That log you see has probably lost much of its original mass already, and it almost certainly isnt as strong as it used to be. The stump may also be parasitically living off other trees in its area, so it might not even be dead. >There is literally no other way to release the carbon That's simply not true. Fungi exhale carbon dioxide and they're just the first step. The carbon isn't released into the atmosphere instantly, but it becomes part of the environment and will not simply be transferred to a new tree or into the ground. >I would be convinced once we would allow dissenting scientists to be given a voice, to expose ''their'' evidence and logic for all to see So you're already convinced by the evidence that exists, you just want the news media to portray it differently? I'm really having trouble understanding this point of view. >1. evidence that carbon dioxide does significantly contribute to the warming of this world and that it has nothing to do with the sun. What evidence would be sufficient? What is the problem with the existing evidence? Is it just that you think it's fabricated? >2. proving how western and then global human industrial activity significantly contributes to the increase of the world wide dioxide carbon in comparison to the natural quantity of CO2 in the air and in comparison to all the other gases in the same atmosphere. Well that one is easy, people can just measure directly the gases produced by a combustion engine and then count the number of combustion engines. I'm sure it has already been done. > have never remotely approached a billionth of the effects of what would pass as a mass extinction event. Look again. The extinction event actually started before human civilization existed, when most of the large mammals outside of Africa were either killed or domesticated. There used to be lions in Europe, now there are barely wolves. Industrialization has simply accelerated the pace at which human activity is destroying habitats.

Haruyoshi · 2024-10-16 12:33

>>84631 >has nothing to do with the sun. as a climate denier myself I have to point out that this is flatly ridiculous and doesn't agree with the climate fanatic's view at all. The basic claim is that CO2 raises the amount of Solar power retained. Take away the Sun and CO2 induced global warming stops immediately and entirely. Of course we can't and shouldn't take away the Sun. >A dead tree will barely decompose. In the grand scheme of things forests don't put down that much retained carbon, although their existence retains some of it. Yes decomposition can take a long time but on any real scale its not that long. Expanding forested areas would reduce atmospheric carbon, but its probably more efficient to lets say farm large amounts of wood or maybe bamboo and store it in anaerobic conditions.

Gyula Kovacs · 2024-10-16 13:23

>>84643 >but its probably more efficient to lets say farm large amounts of wood or maybe bamboo and store it in anaerobic conditions. I actually wonder whether tree farms are carbon-negative, since most of the wood gets used in paper or buildings, and eventually finds its way to a landfill once it can't be recycled any more. It would be funny for some bureaucrat paper-pusher to pat himself on the back for solving climate change by subsidizing the lumber industry.

Y.T · 2024-10-18 02:22

>>84640 >But it will decompose. The speed at which it decomposes depends on a lot of factors, and I guess sometimes it could become petrified, but dead trees absolutely do decompose unless you're in some super- inhospitable desert. They do so absurdly slowly, especially if they have not fully hit the ground. In the same time new trees easily reach a mature height. In temperate zones. >That's simply not true. Fungi exhale carbon dioxide and they're just the first step. The carbon isn't released into the atmosphere instantly, but it becomes part of the environment and will not simply be transferred to a new tree or into the ground. Fungial activity is part of the decomposition cycle but it's so slow that I didn't take into account. Here's another reason, you say that carbon dioxide released by fungi would not be absorbed by new trees, but old trees die in the middle of forests for the most part, surrounded by other trees and plants. Consequently the entire forest absorbs and feeds on the decadal fumes released by the dead plants. The only way you're sure this cycle is broken in by combustion, whether a tree is taken away or vast patches of wood are burning because of wild fires. >So you're already convinced by the evidence that exists, you just want the news media to portray it differently? That is a very weird way to word your question I must say. What I am saying is that the mainstream science that is not short of selfish interests does also conveniently maintain a blackout over people who don't partake in the consensus that is drunk on multi-billion funding. Some dissenters say they have other theories, other data sets or other methods to look at the same data sets and say these portray a different story, with more or less blame for climate change shifted away from human activity to other causes. The shift is not total but even a consideration that anthropic warming could be made less critical is not even accepted, and if you were to look at the last three decades of global warming warnings, you would definitely have a hard time finding the scientific community at large being willing to organize events were mainstream views are challenged. People not open to dissenting views at all contrary to their claims. >What evidence would be sufficient? What is the problem with the existing evidence? Is it just that you think it's fabricated? The existing evidence is seldom challenged, it's produced by a system that is averse to challenges from largely poorly funded teams and laboratories. Dishonesty can be found coming from the mainstream circles. We can see this when it comes to measuring the world's temperature by taking measures at very specific times, in very convenient places, all of which under conditions that would increase the measurements. For example, by putting the little white boxes that contain the thermosensors at the end of high activity commercial landing strips, and picking the measurements exactly when jetliners fly above them, with their exhaust plumes heating up the air in that portion of the strip where one of these boxes is located, which obviously leads to a measurement higher than what is correct. I suspect this dishonesty to be potentially rampant, as it was exposed about the GIEC. There is no reason why it would have abated in the fetid and virtueless world we live in. >Well that one is easy, people can just measure directly the gases produced by a combustion engine and then count the number of combustion engines. I'm sure it has already been done. There is nothing easy about it when there is even a disagreement, again from dissenters, on how much CO2 is due to human activity. Even well minded scientists can fail to question the erroneous models they have been fed. >Look again. The extinction event actually started before human civilization existed, when most of the large mammals outside of Africa were either killed or domesticated. There used to be lions in Europe, now there are barely wolves. Industrialization has simply accelerated the pace at which human activity is destroying habitats. Hunting vs industrial fumes? Seriously? This is so apples and oranges that I don't even see the point of wasting my time on this argument. A species or too gone because they were hunted is not even close to a mass extinction level which is the destruction of entire biomes and the disappearance of many species on a whole different level. You are grasping for straws here.

The Phantom Phreak · 2024-10-18 06:08

>>84640 >But it will decompose. The speed at which it decomposes depends on a lot of factors, and I guess sometimes it could become petrified, but dead trees absolutely do decompose unless you're in some super- inhospitable desert. They do so absurdly slowly, especially if they have not fully hit the ground. In the same time new trees easily reach a mature height. In temperate zones. >That's simply not true. Fungi exhale carbon dioxide and they're just the first step. The carbon isn't released into the atmosphere instantly, but it becomes part of the environment and will not simply be transferred to a new tree or into the ground. Fungial activity is part of the decomposition cycle but it's so slow that I didn't take into account. Here's another reason, you say that carbon dioxide released by fungi would not be absorbed by new trees, but old trees die in the middle of forests for the most part, surrounded by other trees and plants. Consequently the entire forest absorbs and feeds on the decadal fumes released by the dead plants. The only way you're sure this cycle is broken in by combustion, whether a tree is taken away or vast patches of wood are burning because of wild fires. >So you're already convinced by the evidence that exists, you just want the news media to portray it differently? That is a very weird way to word your question I must say. What I am saying is that the mainstream science that is not short of selfish interests does also conveniently maintain a blackout over people who don't partake in the consensus that is drunk on multi-trillion funding. Some dissenters say they have other theories, other data sets or other methods to look at the same data sets and say these portray a different story, with more or less blame for climate change shifted away from human activity to other causes. The shift is not total but even a consideration that anthropic warming could be made less critical is not even accepted, and if you were to look at the last three decades of global warming warnings, you would definitely have a hard time finding the scientific community at large being willing to organize events were mainstream views are challenged. People not open to dissenting views at all contrary to their claims. >What evidence would be sufficient? What is the problem with the existing evidence? Is it just that you think it's fabricated? The existing evidence is seldom challenged, it's produced by a system that is averse to challenges from largely poorly funded teams and laboratories. Dishonesty can be found coming from the mainstream circles. We can see this when it comes to measuring the world's temperature by taking measures at very specific times, in very convenient places, all of which under conditions that would increase the measurements. For example, by putting the little white boxes that contain the thermometric sensors at the end of high activity commercial landing strips, and picking the measurements exactly when jetliners fly above them, with their exhaust plumes heating up the air in that portion of the strip where one of these boxes is located, which obviously leads to a measurement higher than what is correct. I suspect this dishonesty to be potentially rampant, as it was exposed about the GIEC. There is no reason why it would have abated in the fetid and virtueless world we live in. >Well that one is easy, people can just measure directly the gases produced by a combustion engine and then count the number of combustion engines. I'm sure it has already been done. There is nothing easy about it when there is even a disagreement, again from dissenters, on how much CO2 is due to human activity. Even well minded scientists can fail to question the erroneous models they have been fed all their life. >Look again. The extinction event actually started before human civilization existed, when most of the large mammals outside of Africa were either killed or domesticated. There used to be lions in Europe, now there are barely wolves. Industrialization has simply accelerated the pace at which human activity is destroying habitats. Hunting vs industrial fumes? Seriously? This is so apples and oranges that I don't even see the point of wasting my time on this argument. A species or two gone in a given region of the globe because they were hunted to exhaustion is not even close to a mass extinction level which is the destruction of entire biomes and the disappearance of many species on a whole different level. You are grasping at straws here I'm afraid.

Cat Mother · 2024-10-18 06:10

>>84643 >as a climate denier myself I have to point out that this is flatly ridiculous and doesn't agree with the climate fanatic's view at all. The basic claim is that CO2 raises the amount of Solar power retained. Take away the Sun and CO2 induced global warming stops immediately and entirely. Of course we can't and shouldn't take away the Sun. That's not the idea that's being explored. The idea is to question if the global warming may be also due or mainly due to an increase in solar activity, or in fact anything related to the sun and the intensity of its irradiation. This question hardly gets the attention it deserves. They have downs and ups in the past, cool periods, sudden jumps or drops, all natural. Yet all of this is ignored for a myopic theory that fails to be properly substantiated. Some sources will tell you that by looking at the frequency of sunspots we can assess the magnitude of our star's activity and how as a consequence it affects our atmosphere and the global temperature. They also look into tree rings. Compare these two articles: https://theconversation.com/four-graphs-that-suggest-we-cant-blame-climate-change-on-solar-activity-130154 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/has-the-sun-been-more-active-in-recent-decades-and-could-it-be-responsible-for-some-global-warming/ The first one will tell you that the sun activity and global warming don't corelate at all. The second article will tell you this: >Scientists are still debating over how reliable proxies are in determining the Sun’s past activity, but current estimates indicate that the Sun is probably now as active as or more active than it has ever been during the past 8,000 years and provides a graphic that shows how since 1700 the activity in sunspots has increased overall and keeps increasing, so much that post 1940 we are experiencing high peaks of solar activity, but they seem to try to cover their backs: >Regardless, even when scientists assume that solar activity is increasing based on proxy data and the satellite record, they can’t account for all of the warming observed at the end of the twentieth century. Climate models can only reproduce the warming observed since 1950 when a rise in greenhouse gases is built into the system. The climate models therefore focus on a short timescale of 70 years when we could be looking at a global warming phenomenon that is stretched over centuries. We can also see that the proxy graph that relies on sunspots since the '80 peak is nearly the double of that of '30, and the '60 peak is literally the *TRIPLE* of '10's peak, no less. We can see that in general and aside from few minor breaks, these sunspot activity peaks keep getting higher decade on decade, and sunspots relate to emissions of electromagnetic radiations at various lengths. Wouldn't this mean there is a rise of solar activity in general? Why would it be dismissed so bluntly? There could also be an effect of over-accumulation of heat energy that Earth doesn't flush as fast as we'd like to. Or maybe there are other major phenomena that are still not understood properly and *impossible to predict*, yet have far reaching consequences for the global temperature, such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Finally, none of this takes into consideration the rather very serious topic of geoengineering.

Junichi Fujiwara · 2024-10-18 06:13

Here is another article that pushes forward another study. https://humanevents.com/2021/08/26/study-finds-sun-may-be-leading-cause-of-global-warming/ https://www.westernjournal.com/study-nearly-2-dozen-scientists-finds-sun-not-co2-may-chief-cause-global-warming/ >Study Finds Sun May Be Leading Cause of Global Warming >A new study by nearly two dozen scientists found that rising global temperatures may be caused by the sun, rather than carbon dioxide. >According to The Australian, a paper by 23 solar physics and climate science experts from 14 different countries, the 16 most prominent datasets of solar output show solar energy is more of a cause for global warming than carbon dioxide. >“I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change,” Ronan Connolly from the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, said. If you go to the WJ page you find a long retraction disclaimer which is particularly loaded with irony. Case in point: >For example, there are some, including scientists, who claim that evolution is unsupported, that AIDS does not exist, or that COVID-19 vaccines will cause millions of deaths despite all evidence to the contrary. Yet it would be misleading for a writer to present “both sides”, as it would incorrectly suggest there is a genuine scientific debate over these issues. Indeed, there is no debate at all over these issues, and that should be an issue itself. Tell me that this "retraction" doesn't smell politics at all. It was "fact checked" (...) there: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/solar-forcing-is-not-the-main-cause-of-current-global-warming-contrary-to-claim-by-alex-newman-in-the-epoch-times/ Even if these guys were right, right after WW2 industries all over the world were blossoming (and cement production increased massively), if only to rebuild what was destroyed. Large third world countries were moving in as well and developing their own massive industries. Yet you can see that between 1945 and 1970, the global temperature is averagely flat. Then suddenly, right after 1970 the temperature keeps going up and up. The two pictures attached to this message are taken from climatefeedback.org. They're respectively figure 1 and 3. Consider figure 1. It would seem to completely bury any idea of any form of solar relevance. All the gases and especially carbon dioxide are on the rise. Sometimes the increase slows down but never reverts to former levels when comparing periods of five or ten years. Now let's compare with figure 3. >Figure 3 – Time evolution in effective radiative forcings (ERFs) across the industrial era for anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms. The ERF measures the net heat gain or loss in the Earth’s climate system. Well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHG) are the long-lived gases that have a strong impact on climate and include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and different kinds of chlorofluorocarbons. From the U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. We can observe several discrepancies where the red curve on figure 1 struggles to coincide with the all the major sources of global warming shown on figure 3. Please understand that the climate change model covers at best two centuries, meaning that oddities that cover decades are rightfully magnified in their importance. Here are the discrepancies we can see: 1. The 1940-1970 averaged period comes out as utterly flat, that doesn't line up with figure 3. 2. The 1940 hill (or bump) doesn't have any corresponding pattern in figure 3. 3. The 1940-1950 period shows a considerable dip that is again invisible on figure 3. 4. The post-1890 fall is once again not mirrored in figure 3. 5. And if we're going smoothen things, say by picking the bump of 1935-1945 to fill the hole of 1900-1910, we'd have more than four decades of a flattened global temperature. If the temperature rise correlated with the rise of all the causes retained for the global warming theory, we would simply not be able to obtain any flat segment at any time. So I'm not saying it's the sun that's the sole culprit here but the "consensus" is itself taking obvious liberties and seems to get a free pass with what looks to me to be glaring omissions if not blatant expectations to "look away, nothing to see here". As always, professors and doctors external to the mainstream circle are scorned because they barely get validated by the "peer reviewed" system, and when an analysis that may even contain a possible prediction fails to perfectly conform to the current events, as if we understood everything about the atmosphere and climate, which we don't, then these interesting theories are packed, thrown in the bin and never reconsidered, not even given a chance for an update while the mainstream science keeps for itself the privilege of having the right to be being wrong and continuously patching itself up but still being THE authority. This is neither scientific nor fair.

Yu-ichi · 2024-10-18 06:14

Since the WJ has removed the reference to the Australian and the study, we have to look for it ourselves. If it were not for the WBM it would be quite hard to find material pertaining to the study. https://web.archive.org/web/20210821122129/https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html >“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview. >“In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added. >While the paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies, the authors show conclusively that, depending on the data sets being used, it is entirely possible that most or even all of the warming has nothing to do with man. >Using 16 different estimates on the amount of solar energy, dubbed “Total Solar Irradiance,” the review compares that data with over 25 estimates of temperatures in the Northern hemisphere stretching back to the 1800s. >When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions. >And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change. >According to the study’s authors, including urban data sets results in an artificial upward skewing of temperatures due to the well-known “urban heat island” effect that must be taken into account. >Basically, cities tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and structures, so temperature stations that had cities grow up around them will show artificial temperature increases caused by the urbanization rather than global warming. >Connolly also said that the IPCC ignored key recent papers contradicting its conclusions, even denying that any such new papers existed despite leading IPCC scientists having cited those same papers in their own work. >For instance, a related 2015 paper published in the prestigious Earth-Science Reviews journal titled “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century” was cited favorably by IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Panmao Zhai of China. That paper argued, among other points, that the urban heat effect is not being properly addressed. >And yet, in the latest IPCC Assessment Report, the UN body claims that “No recent literature has emerged” that would cause an altering of its conclusion that the urbanization issue explains less than 10 percent of the apparent rise in global land temperatures. >Asked why the 2015 study in a major journal cited by one of its own leaders, among other key papers, was not mentioned in its latest report, a spokesman for the IPCC told The Epoch Times after consulting with IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Panmao that “decisions on citations are up to the chapter team authors not the co-chairs.” >A spokesman for the UN body told The Epoch Times that he asked Panmao for an answer but that any potential response would not likely be forthcoming prior to publication. >In another case, the IPCC misrepresented a 2019 study that Connolly was involved in on snow cover, falsely implying that it showed less snow in all four seasons. In reality, the study showed more snow cover in fall and winter and that current climate models get all four seasons wrong. >Part of the problem is that the IPCC is mandated to find a scientific consensus, according to Connolly. >“This may have seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but where the scientific community has dissenting opinions, trying to force a premature consensus unfortunately hinders scientific progress—it is unhelpful and leads to an unjustified confidence in the conclusions,” Connolly told The Epoch Times in an interview. >Attempting to explain the absence of various published scientific viewpoints in the UN’s reports, the study cited researchers and papers to suggest that “scientific results that might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.” >“The definition of climate change was distorted in 1992 in a way that is incompatible with science,” the geophysicist explained, pointing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its exclusion of natural causes from the definition of climate change. We saw definitions being altered for vaccines. I think we can wait for truth just as we still wait for an open debate of both parties for 9/11. >Acknowledging a lack of expertise regarding the sun specifically, Brady slammed the IPCC and its models. >Among other concerns, he noted that they “still predict more storms even though they are declining,” and “they still report accelerating sea level [rise] when that does not exist.” >For instance, the late Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who served as an IPCC reviewer on sea-level, frequently accused the UN body of getting it wrong—most likely for political rather than scientific reasons. >Another outside expert contacted by The Epoch Times for insight into the new study and the latest IPCC report also expressed major concerns. >Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, noted that “the IPCC report indicates high confidence in model simulations while at the same time noting in the main body of the report how the models poorly represent the real atmosphere.” >The IPCC claims its models accurately portray the impact of all the forces that affect the climate and that nothing else could have caused the warming over the last 40 years except human emissions, he explained. >“This indicates a bit of hubris and lack of imagination,” said Christy, who also serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center. >Acknowledging that he had not had time to read the new paper or carefully review the latest IPCC report, the world-renowned climatologist told The Epoch Times that the UN’s models cannot even reproduce the natural variations of the last 150 years, such as the natural warming during the first half of the 20th century. >“They also overdo the warming of the last 40 years, again, not matching the real world,” he said. >“So, if they can’t reproduce natural variations with sufficient skill and they overheat the atmosphere over the last 40 years, how are they then endowed with the ability to tell us ‘why’ changes are happening with such ‘unequivocal’ confidence?” he asked. >Dr. Christy was blunt in his conclusions, saying “the models certainly don’t agree with each other regarding the future.” >When contacted about the new paper, Gavin Schmidt, who serves as acting senior advisor on climate at NASA and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was also blunt. >“This is total nonsense that no one sensible should waste any time on,” he told The Epoch Times. >He did not respond to a follow-up request for specific errors of fact or reasoning in the new RAA paper. >However, even Schmidt, a leading proponent of the man-made warming hypothesis, has conceded that the IPCC’s models have been inaccurate.

Pris · 2024-10-18 06:15

Has no one noticed how the sun is brighter than it used to be? It used to be yellow too, now the sun is a searing white.

Agent Jones · 2024-10-18 06:16

Gavin Schmidt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_inimzcMWW0 https://principia-scientific.com/top-nasa-climate-scientist-uses-private-email-to-avoid-oversight/ >Climate change warriors, particularly scientists, get a free pass on everything. >They are not subject to libel laws, scientific integrity rules, copyright law, etc. For example, everyone in the entire German science hierarchy has been notified of serious corruption in German climate science by German climate scientist Gerrit Lohmann and the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI), among others, but none have even responded and it has never been mentioned in the mainstream media even in Germany. >Stefan Rahmstorf has also tried silencing tactics (admittedly much lamer ones), on American journalists who dare question climate change, particularly Bret Stephens, now of the New York Times. >This climate-change warrior free pass also seems to protect some government officials — in particular ex-NASA GISS’s James Hansen and current NASA GISS’s Gavin Schmidt — from prosecution for violations of the Hatch Act, which forbids government officials from spending government time and money on political activities. >These climate change warriors, particularly the scientists, are treated like infallible gods, which explains RealClimatologists.org’s motto “If Global Warming Is Irrefutable, It’s Not Science, It’s Religion”. For us, it’s also about religion because it’s a shame to see scientists sell their souls.

Frank Garza · 2024-10-18 06:22

And here's a PDF that fact checks the fact checking raised against the study and article published by Alex Newman. https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fact-check-fact-check.pdf

Terzibashjian · 2024-10-18 07:43

I really wonder what will happen to all these climate change deniers when becomes even more clear than it is now that the climate is rapidly warming. What will others think of such people then?

Switch · 2024-10-18 08:01

>>84697 Same as you now. The 2000 predictions how we would be grilled by now failed. And what do you do? Avoid mentioning it and ignore it.

Yuki Nagato · 2024-10-18 08:03

>>84699 Predictions by whom? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that we've been breaking heat record after heat record these last two years.

Armitage · 2024-10-18 08:15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise coincidence that they began to rise at the beginning of the industrial age

Emmanuel · 2024-10-18 09:04

>>84697 >I really wonder what will happen to all these climate change deniers when becomes even more clear than it is now that the climate is rapidly warming. What will others think of such people then? Deniers do not necessarily deny the warming. Most of the struggle happens to be about the cause(s). There are a few people who also already predict a coming little ice age.

Ivan Horvat · 2024-10-18 09:06

>>84701 >coincidence that they began to rise at the beginning of the industrial age Coincidence. Assuming the measures are correct, the beginning of the industrial age would by definition not generate enough CO2 to matter, the human input to CO2 production would have back then been in its infancy, ergo negligible.

Nemissa · 2024-10-18 09:07

>>84700 Deniers of the human cause of global warming have been predicting a rise of the global temperature too.

Elliot Alderson · 2024-10-18 15:12

>>84701 mayb industrial age happen because of external factors too hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Six · 2024-10-19 09:23

>>84701 If there was any chance of sea levels rising then Obama wouldn't have a $12m mansion on Martha's Vineyard. Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do.

Liet Kynes · 2024-10-19 11:14

>>84727 >imblying obammi cares about 50-100 year timelines if the house gets flooded he can move no big dealee-o. Hes an old guy not sure if he's ever going to get grandchildren, not sure if he'd care about them if he did, and if he did whats a house worth anyway he can get them a different house. Even if sea level rise is as bad as anyone thinks its not going to be like pop 250 feet rise one day to the next. There'll be time to prepare and probably some political donor/imbecile (but I repeat myself) would buy the house for a good price anyway just to get on his good side even if its about to be ruined.

Marly Krushkhova · 2024-10-20 02:32

>>84678 Again I really do not understand your point of view here. You have issues with the "consensus" and how opposing views are shut down, that's all very clear. But what does that have to do with the actual evidence available? What problems do you have with the methods that people are using to support their results? What about them makes them unconvincing to you, aside from presentation and social context? >For example, by putting the little white boxes that contain the thermometric sensors at the end of high activity commercial landing strips That's because those little white boxes are used to gauge local weather conditions at the landing strips. In any case, one would expect this to cause a very predictable bias, which would not affect change over time (especially if you compare such quantities as average temperature in a given month). >Hunting vs industrial fumes? Seriously? Yes, seriously. Extinction of megafauna started thousands of years ago and has been accelerating throughout human history, and it's a classic sign of a mass extinction event, sometimes even by definition.

Splicer · 2024-10-20 02:40

>>84727 Powerful people aren't the ones that are getting screwed over. They can just go buy up an island and build a huge undergound bunker, like Zuckerberg and who knows how many are doing. They aren't interested in sustainability. They know that "green capitalism" is never going to work, they know that their system is unsustainable, but they don't need it to be. They just need to get their bag and let some other sucker try to deal with it. It just so happens that environmentalism is popular now, so they can milk us for a few more quid by selling us a metal straw.

Ishikura "Tatsu" Tatsuhiko · 2024-10-20 04:55

>>84741 >okam razir: obamuh hav a manchin on marta vinyerd cuz he dont gib a fuarrrk jus like priest bang gay hoogers cuz he a faggid Is somebody upset? It's called cognitive dissonance. >>84755 >They can just go buy up an island and build a huge undergound bunker Ok but explain why they are pouring such huge amounts of money into climate change propaganda? Academia, thinktanks, corporate media, hollywood, political lobbying you can't get away from people talking about climate change. We're getting to a point where they want to pass laws to punish "climate deniers". Meanwhile the people funding all this eat steak on their private jets from their waterfront mansions they clearly don't believe climate change is real. But they are spending huge amounts of money to make sure you to believe it's real. If they didn't care they wouldn't spend the money, climate change would just be another obscure conspiracy theory nobody is allowed to talk about on TV. The only reason they spend all this money on climate advocacy is because they expect to get some kind of return on investment. >They know that "green capitalism" is never going to work That's another reason why this is all bullshit. I'm read Greta's Climate book. It is 100% politics. There's almost no science or predictions or suggestions for solving the "climate crisis" in it. The whole book is literally just >capitalism bad >conservatives bad >straight white men bad >We need to centralize the means of production under the state because politicians can totally be trusted to do what's best for the people It is literally the communist manifesto 2.0.

Otto Normalverbraucher · 2024-10-20 11:36

>>84761 >is sumbudddy ubsed??!??!??!? Forgive me man, I'm a retard. If I was smarter, I'd know how to post my IEP chart to prove it, but because I'm a retard I'll just have to ask you to take my at my word for all its worth. I thought that Occam's Razor was essentially the suggestion that the simplest possible explanation that meets the facts is often the most reasonable, plurality without necessity is ridiculous. Your claim is that this aging mulatto centimillionaire (not sure exactly what he's worth but probably over 100 million) cares deeply about what one of his houses is going to be worth in 50-100 years, and because he knows climate change is a hoax is satisfied that its a good investment and IDK maybe one of his kids or his foundations or something will benefit from him keeping it. I say: Look; Martha's Vinyard is by many accounts a nice place, and a lot of rich users whom he might want to hang out with live there besides. Why shouldn't he Who's is simpler?

Cutter · 2024-10-21 13:43

If this genre is meant to be science-fiction, cannot we simply handwave the problem of pollution by the necessary and implied existence of urban towers, robotics and passive energy collecting systems and claim that they would be clean and any composite structure would be nearly perfectly recycled? Isn't that the real hope behind this genre?

fsociety · 2024-10-21 13:51

>>84734 This does not strike me as logical. If the house would get flooded its value would be null, impossible to sell. It's a net loss of twelve million dollars. The timescale isn't even 50-100, it's much shorter as per the alarmism, and nobody would take such silly risks. He has children. Are you saying he's willing to take the risk of putting them at risk of losing all that money because of a really stupid real estate investment despite the ilk he belongs to supposedly being convinced that Waterworld is to happen soon? >>84772 >I thought that Occam's Razor was essentially the suggestion that the simplest possible explanation that meets the facts is often the most reasonable, plurality without necessity is ridiculous. That's about it. You can indeed say that they go there and if things turn to worse they still can build a wall around it. It's possible indeed and they all settle there because it's an objectively nice place. But are you ready to push this argument for all the multi-billion artificial areas that have been built in recent human history within the last two decades despite the rising of sea levels?

Apoc · 2024-10-21 13:57

>>84755 Perhaps limiting your comprehension of the issue to le ebil capitalists!! will have you miss the higher purpose of this entire multi-trillion narrative.

BloodCat · 2024-10-21 14:00

>>84772 Your cope is predicated on sea levels not rising within Obama's lifetime therefor he has no reason to care. But then none of us would have a reason to care so I'm pretty sure that's not the message. At the very least you're admitting that Obama knows the claims about sea levels rising soon is fake.

Technician · 2024-10-21 14:25

>>84814 The concept here seems to require Westerners to believe that these elites are massive gamblers to the order of risking untold billions of dollars, but who also truly believe that if we all work together in harmony we can make it and collectively "beat the heat".

Junichi Fujiwara · 2024-10-21 16:26

>>84812 >net loss of 12 million dollars For me that would be a big deal. To Obama, this is (rough estimate) 5-10% of his net worth. Not great, but not so bad. For me, loosing a house would be a big deal. To Obama, he has at least two more to fall back on. From what I can tell he doesn't even spend hurricanes there. There's a risk but don't blow it out of proportion here, and even disregarding sea levels he's taking some risk for hurricanes and that sort of disaster. >he has children he has adult children who do not live with him >timescale is much shorter well I guess I don't pay enough attention to it then. Still I think the point should be acknowledged that Obama is old and probably cares about rather shorter timescales than you or I. >are you ready to push this argument for all the multi billion dollar... no, I think that Obama is a particularly bad example to use to illustrate this argument but its not an argument without merit. >>84814 I'm not admitting anything because I have no inside knowledge I'm merely speculating. >your cope is predicated on sea levels not rising within Obama's lifetime therefor he has no reason to care because apparently you're a little thicker than even I (Impressive!) Ill give you some bullet points -Obama is old and probably cares about shorter timescales than you or I -Obama is very rich and 12 million dollars is possibly an acceptable loss to him -Obama has other houses and keeping one house in a risky but pleasant area doesn't seem unreasonable when you have 3+ -Obama already is likely mitigating his personal danger by avoiding the area in times of inclement weather

Bobby Newmark · 2024-10-21 16:48

>>84813 Oh right, it's le ebil jews instead, of course. Obviously that makes it completely different. >>84811 Nope, this thread is vaguely related to culture war nonsense therefore that is the ONLY thing it's about. >>84761 >Academia, thinktanks, corporate media, hollywood, political lobbying you can't get away from people talking about climate change. maybe because it's a big issue? People have memories, everyone knows that the world is getting hotter and extreme weather events are getting more frequent and destructive. The question of why there is so much propaganda comes down to politics. This issue was politicized, even though it has literally nothing to do with the core values of any political party except the greens. One side gets to say "we believe in science" because they religiously defend the most popular scientific theory, and the other gets to say "we question authority" because they religiously deny the most popular scientific theory. You're a fool if you don't think both sides are getting massive amounts of funding to say what they say, sometimes from the same people. >Meanwhile the people funding all this eat steak on their private jets from their waterfront mansions they clearly don't believe climate change is real *they don't believe it will harm them. >The only reason they spend all this money on climate advocacy is because they expect to get some kind of return on investment. Correct, and they are getting their return on investment. Notice how all the policies that actually get implemented -- no matter who implements them -- provide ample opportunities and legal loopholes for them. They ride the wave of people realizing "hey, something is wrong, we should do something!", encourage it, and exploit it. >I'm read Greta's Climate book. I have not, I don't care at all what she has to say. >>84815 Cooperation is usually a good strategy. I don't know why you think it's more unlikely that a bunch of wealthy elites who fried their brains on pounds of high-quality cocaine and spend their day fuarrrking teenagers would fritter away human civilization rather than sane, competent administrators deciding to cooperate.

Switch · 2024-10-21 17:26

>>84822 >this thread is vaguely related to culture war litorally everywhere I see anything about 'solar punk' its inexorably tied to green party climate theory. It is pretty much a theoretical 'genre' made as progressolib's utopian countervision to cyberpunk as a dream whither to work, in a political way. There is nothing about 'solar punk' that is not culturewar, except maybe that one yogurt ad.

Crazy Jake · 2024-10-22 10:28

>>84821 >For me that would be a big deal. To Obama, this is (rough estimate) 5-10% of his net worth. Holy soykaf. What the hell did this mong ever do to own so much brouzouf?

Hiro Protagonist · 2024-10-22 10:32

>>84825 Advertising is a visual medium, it conveys ideas and a message and just cannot escape the culture war. Not that it would even try to.

Hacker · 2024-10-22 11:37

>>84825 >>84834 >the culture war is real How sad. It's just a divide and conquer strategy, lains. >>84833 Sucked lots of defense contractor dick

Dujour · 2024-10-22 13:02

>>84754 >You have issues with the "consensus" and how opposing views are shut down, that's all very clear. Precisely. >But what does that have to do with the actual evidence available? Dissenting opinions use other datasets or different formula, provide different interpretations that do not agree with the claim that humans are criminally ruining this planet because of their industrial activity. >What problems do you have with the methods that people are using to support their results? This is extremely technical. I already pointed at other scientists using alternative methods. >What about them makes them unconvincing to you, aside from presentation and social context? As you said, because opposing views are shut down. This should not happen and it makes the official mainstream narrative suspicious and I can easily notice the near tyrannical changes brought to society by surfing on the alarmist propaganda. >That's because those little white boxes are used to gauge local weather conditions at the landing strips. As I said, they put them right in the trajectory of planes and their sensors pick up the temperatures when they're doused on exhaust plumes. Please don't make me repeat myself when you could have avoided yourself some confusion by citing the entire sentence. > Extinction of megafauna started thousands of years ago and has been accelerating throughout human history, and it's a classic sign of a mass extinction event, sometimes even by definition. You are relying on a very absurd definition. At the same time some species or races disappear, others also appear. You are being alarmist too.

Splicer · 2024-10-22 13:28

>>84822 >Oh right, it's le ebil jews instead, of course. Obviously that makes it completely different. So capitalists are purposely destroying all the economies and societies of the world they depend on, and the very world itself, just to make some more money despite making their lands and wealth less valuable in the process? The fact that the loss of liberties predicated by these scare tactics is perfectly lining up with the consolidation of a one world government where the real deciders are massive trusts that outsize in power entire nations, is just one big coincidence?

Y.T · 2024-10-22 13:33

>>84833 >Holy soykaf. What the hell did this mong ever do to own so much brouzouf? Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan ..... he made a lot of money for the military industrial complex. And don't forget banker bailouts, he probably got a nice kickback from wallstreet for stabbing the American people in the back after the 2008 crisis too.

Yamaoto Toshi · 2024-10-22 14:15

>>78190 >>84811 I find it annoying that it tries so hard to be a "nice" setting. Is it supposed to be the backdrop for the writing of great fiction? Also, about solarchan, it doesn't look like a community driven by a desire to write exciting stories. What I see is a bunch of nolife anons pretending doing hardline green politics by planning a rebellion against Marx's arch enemy, and all from the comfort of a glorified speculative echochamber where they entertain the idea of fighting with harsh words while backing up their fantastic aims with the most absurd understanding of politics. I'm not seeing anything of value there. I'm all in for a burgeoning and agited experimental milieu of daring ideas thrown at the wall in a futile exercise of providing entertainment about a desperate attempt at fighting against a much exagerated threat, not for a discount think tank sustained by dimwits who swallow down to the sinker the most blatantly manipulative published works, such as Heating People, Not Spaces, which is a very roundabout fashion to say have people live in flat roofed square pods with little to no space wasted so they can all be squished against heaters while dressed with thick clothes. No doubt the authors of such books are already living according to these grand principles.

Lord Nikon · 2024-10-22 14:28

https://slrpnk.net/ https://www.solarpunkconference.com/ Gayest soykaf ever.

Agent Jones · 2024-10-22 14:39

>>84846 >So capitalists are purposely destroying all the economies and societies of the world they depend on, and the very world itself, just to make some more money despite making their lands and wealth less valuable in the process? Like I said, they're getting their bags and letting someone else take the fall. Enough wealth and/or political power (which are almost identical in modern liberal "democracies") can buy you quite a lot of security, even when the economy tanks or the government falls apart. Doesn't matter if your little slips of paper are worthless if you own a castle. >The fact that the loss of liberties predicated by these scare tactics is perfectly lining up with the consolidation of a one world government where the real deciders are massive trusts that outsize in power entire nations, is just one big coincidence? No, it's a direct consequence of the increasing power of these robber barons. A one world government is the perfect environment for big business. They can craft a single business model and export it to every country, don't need to worry about international trade restrictions or border disputes or even cultural distinctions, you can shop around for the place that will give you the most leeway to abuse workers. Lack of freedoms means lack of the freedom to not spend money on certain things provided by certain people. Organizations such as the IMF, World bank, and the american military can be used to punish anyone who goes too far out of line. Why do you think they assassinated Gaddafi?

Zero Cool · 2024-10-23 01:53

>>84853 >the global model is one of misery and impoverishment; loss of national value, health and wealth; unfettered materialism; rampant degeneracy; barely disguised slavery; total destruction of history, culture and identity; loss of ownership and fundamental liberties >except for one specific people who scrupulously follow the guidelines of their own old dusty scrolls and just happen to be found everywhere in positions of power as soon as we begin scratching a little bit >totally a coincidence I prefer to remain cautious to be honest. It was all too convenient to remain stuck at the Marxist reading level and unable to see the guiding hand behind all of this, I was in that pitiable state more than ten years ago. You should get the upgrade anon, it's good for you.

H.R. Giger · 2024-10-23 02:51

>>84869 Are you talking about ethnic Jews (the majority of which do not "scrupulously follow their own dusty scrolls") or orthodox Jews (who are not particularly over-represented in positions of power)? They weren't religiously derezzed from charging interest in the middle ages, so they got wealthy. It's not complicated. Anyway, it's not like the Orthodox Jews are alone in remaining "pure". You must honestly know nothing about the world if you think they're the only people that are extremely conservative.

Linda Lee · 2024-10-23 04:11

>>84871 nobody gets wealthy from banking. You need money to start a bank in first place. If you dig you find they did gang soykaf and got hated for forced prostitution among other crap.

Arisu Mizuki · 2024-10-23 08:19

>>84873 >nobody gets wealthy from banking People deposit all their money with you and you lend out 90% of it at interest. If you don't have enough money to cover a big loan then lend it from the central bank at 0% interest. If you go broke, for example a bank run, then the government will bail you out with taxpayer's money. My dude it's impossible to not get wealthy from banking.

Neuromancer · 2024-10-23 08:38

>>84877 You cant get wealthy from banking because you need wealth in first place to start a bank Also don't ignore context -this is about rome - middle ages not now.

John Doe · 2024-10-23 08:58

>>84878 regarding modern banking: you need money to get a banking license + paperwork which is about 2mil total. If you lend in private and get noticed as commercial scale you going to jail. And you cant take interest as you wish. Central bank tells you the rate. The bubbles and crashes with banks speculating on markets were a consequence of central banks making lending unprofitable which forced bankers to find new income sources. Originally banks were even forbidden to engage in speculation but they forced it open when their main income lending dried up to survive.

Ishikura "Tatsu" Tatsuhiko · 2024-10-23 09:56

the big reason les judes are accused of making money off 'banking' is because they were free from prohibitions against usury; they could give loans with interest which made giving loans much more reasonable and so they make money that way. We're talking about a period of thousands of years here, you can start with an amount that any reasonably successful person has and just slowly build up. Compound interest isn't much at first but its gets pretty big in the long run! Not saying that they merely did banking but there's no reason you can't get rich giving loans after starting at ~normal person wealth levels.

Bobby Newmark · 2024-10-24 03:47

>>84871 >Are you talking about ethnic Jews (the majority of which do not "scrupulously follow their own dusty scrolls") But they do. They don't need to be religious about it to fit in the more secular part of the very pragmatic and materialist side of the program detailed in the scriptures. The spiritual knick-knack is just acting like a topping. In general they all in their own way contribute to the empowerment of their community and it always comes at the expense of everyone else, internal disagreements notwithstanding. >They weren't religiously derezzed from charging interest in the middle ages, so they got wealthy. It's not complicated. The Christian hypocrisy was indeed at an all time high. Don't do this but let the nasty people over here do it for you within your own nation. Convenient. >Anyway, it's not like the Orthodox Jews are alone in remaining "pure". You must honestly know nothing about the world if you think they're the only people that are extremely conservative. You're going off on a tangent there anon. >>84873 It's the easiest way to get wealthy, next to prostitution and pornography. You do if you practice lending and other scams that allow you to benefit from economical shocks that you knew were coming because you had a hand in preparing them from the very beginning. Example, one method is to open the flood gates of credit at low rates and when a whole population gorged on it, you suddenly contract the flow by raising the interest rates. That's one of the most basic tricks and it always works. It's incredibly destructive when the rates are floating.

Nameless · 2024-10-24 03:51

>>84880 >you need money to get a banking license + paperwork which is about 2mil total. That's because the whole practice is not heavily gatekept. >Originally banks were even forbidden to engage in speculation but they forced it open when their main income lending dried up to survive. >to survive How naive.

Agent Jones · 2024-10-24 04:19

>>84898 >How naive. Naive would be to assume simple greed. You think they wanted to make money regardless but the important part is they had additional pressure to participate topdown by making their core business lending unprofitable thought central regulation.The first big banker bailout was forced by "everyone is involved, if we dont bail them our entire system collapses". Who forced involvement? The central bank who made lending previously unprofitable while allowing banks to gamble with hedge funds.

The Plague · 2024-10-24 04:58

Fiat currency is usury, "inflation" is interest being charged.

Crash Override · 2024-10-25 02:59

>>84902 >Fiat currency is usury Literally no. >"inflation" is interest being charged. Somehow related yes, perhaps very directly even, since inflation is the lowering of the value of a currency, which nowadays is almost entirely due to the creation of money in excess of what is needed.

Anamika · 2024-10-25 04:59

>>84937 fiat is generated as loans with interest. Originally usury meant charging interest. So he would be right in biblical terms. Wouldn't call inflation interest though. You are footing the entire cost with inflation not just interest. This is more like another tax. There isn't even a nice term for schemes like gov prints money, gives it to real estate corp who then destroys housing market buying it all up. You effectively got to finance a monopoly denying you cheap housing through inflation. Its basically same soykaf as nobility in old times. Ownership isn't earned, its given topdown with money printer constituting modern royalty.

Aristóteles Amadópulus · 2024-10-25 05:39

>>84937 >due to the creation of money in excess of what is needed. No amount of money creation is "needed". It's a scam from start to finish. Keynesians telling you they need to print money and give it to themselves to "stimulate" the economy is the same as a junkie telling you he needs change for the bus. >>84939 >usury This is where fascists and national socialists get sloppy. They look at fractional reserve banking and central banking and fiat money and rightly see that it's all a scam and all facilitated through money lending. Then they wrongly conclude that all money lending must be illegitimate. Lending money is not the problem, it's lending money that does not exist or does not belong to lender which is the problem.

Unknown · 2024-10-25 06:58

>>84940 Thats ridiculous because prohibitions against usury are so much older than modern banking or fiat currency. This is ancient biblical stuff not hitler musing with his friends about the roots of evil.

Unsigned · 2024-10-25 07:36

>>84941 >prohibitions against usury are so much older than modern banking or fiat currency There's nothing "modern" about storing people's money and then lending it out behind their backs.

John Titor · 2024-10-25 10:53

>>84943 usury is lending at interest, or lending at excessive interest, it can be done with out even need for money let alone fiat currency and fractional reserve banking

Koos van der Merwe · 2024-10-25 11:11

>>84949 You implied that my criticisms of usury are "ridiculous" because prohibitions against usury date back to before "modern" banking practices. I counter that by pointing out that fractional reserve banking dates back a long time too.

John Doe · 2024-10-26 00:59

>>84852 That's exactly what I said at the start of the thread: Steampunk, cyberpunk and other less known variations like dieselpunk exist because they make a good setup for fictional stories whose themes and moral echoes in our world. They are dystopias straight out of uncle Ted's wet dreams. Solarpunk is trying to sell you a dream. And we all know it's fake. And we all know it's made to make some people gain power and others money.

Sipho Nkosi · 2024-10-26 07:37

>>84964 what about becoming a multi species entity like portuguese man o' war

Neo · 2024-10-26 08:00

>>78190 >>84898 >That's because the whole practice is not heavily gatekept. Shit, meant 'now', not 'not'.

The Oracle · 2024-10-26 08:24

>>84950 forgive me but you seemed to be suggesting that the complaints against usury are from people mistakenly attributing the problems of fractional reserve banking to usury. My point is that prohibitions against usury are far older than F.R.B. and therefore this is not the case. FRB may have its problems but usury separately has its own long recognized ones. (Does FRB even go back 500 years? ) >>84964 I'm skeptical about steampunk and diesel punk which outwardly seem to just be aesthetics. I know there are books written in these settings and maybe even alright books, but the setting is just a sort of fantasy rping as scifi or alternate history. /Cyb/ alone of these is in its own right a compelling scifi setting, although it has its larper adherents who are just in because the matrix and bladerunner had cool costumes as well. Solarpunk on the other hand isn't even weird alt history its just like libs imagining e/utopia. eutopia is the worst possible setting for a story. Does anyone here even have a single half decent solarpunk story to recommend ?

Case · 2024-10-26 08:26

>>84939 >fiat is generated as loans with interest. Incorrect. Interest is not mandatory in the generation of any fiat currency. But such a currency type makes it much easier to practice usury because it's much more volatile than a currency that is glued to a real treasure. >Originally usury meant charging interest. It still does. >There isn't even a nice term for schemes like gov prints money, gives it to real estate corp who then destroys housing market buying it all up. Probably because there is nothing nice about it, aside from corruption. >>84940 >No amount of money creation is "needed". It's a scam from start to finish. Money is a tool and if you don't have enough of that tool you cannot do enough work. Money created in proportion to the productive capacity of a nation is fine and healthy, but today we see an overproduction of money to sustain a gluttonous "national" debt which is just a racket, a growing sequestration of the money by wealthy groups so it's not shared properly, and a reduction of the industrial capacity of Western nations by self-sabotage, whether it's by selling or moving industrial assets abroad or by using less energy for the sake of fighting against climate change. It is these conditions that create the feeling that fiat currencies are toxic. >This is where fascists and national socialists get sloppy. They look at fractional reserve banking and central banking and fiat money and rightly see that it's all a scam and all facilitated through money lending. Then they wrongly conclude that all money lending must be illegitimate. Nazi Germany was lending money to her population in controlled quantities. So I doubt that defenders of that kind of authoritarian regime would be against lending. The issue of usury is the necessity to generate a surplus of artificial money to pay for the interest and the obligation to give it back to the lender regardless of the success of whatever the money was provided to begin with. Nazi Germany had decided to brace the currency against the work of her population, which by definition cannot be eternally expanded short of a demographic burst, which would obviously require the creation of money anyway. An economy is a fragile system for which one finds the idea that there should be on average that amount of money owned by each person. >Lending money is not the problem, it's lending money that does not exist or does not belong to lender which is the problem. By definition no money "exist" until it is created. Salt or gold didn't exist until they were collected and transformed. They are mere methods of exchange. There is no issue creating and providing money to people not owning any if it's productive. Governments can and should also regulate the value of a currency by destroying portions of it after it's collected through taxes. The other issue is that corporate entities keep accruing more and more of it despite taxes so this currency seldom returns into the lower levels of society where it's much more needed.

Splicer · 2024-10-26 08:50

>>84973 >Incorrect. Interest is not mandatory in the generation of any fiat currency. Obviously you could do it without. However right now they do it with interest. Im sure you got gov bonds covered in hs.

Nanashi No Gombe · 2024-10-26 08:55

>>84964 Steampunk is very lightweight on the punk part. In many ways it's all good looks and nothing more because it didn't even start with a worldview revealed through novels. It said I exist and then proceeded to definite itself visually by depending on one huge if not cheap gimmick. The cyberpunk was different, the name was found later, and the prefix cyber itself is rather rich, its origins being well detached from the now assumed mandatory e-powered mechanic prosthetics, oppressive neon cityscapes, looming AIs and physical man-machine interfaces. Steampunk is just >hurr durr its runnin un sdeam >let's flanderize steam-tech then! >and let's add punk because... huh, why not? That's all there is to it. The message if there is any can easily be lost even when it's meant at best to be a critique of the industrial revolution. But at least steampunk and dieselpunk to some extent might contribute to crafting a rather bleak setup where "things went wrong" although it's not a given. You have a whole range of positive steampunk where it's just choo choo because muh cool vapur and muh corsets. If solarpunk were honest, it would tell us the dream is a trap, and we would have to agree that we're living it so it could not be a free flowing field of creation for stories. It has no reality outside of leftism, and its literature amounts to nothing more than globalist reports and mainstream articles, that's the problem. It's not meant for entertainment or fiction with a sliver of political critique, it's just the current-thing program to fuarrrk us over. In fact, solarpunk is cyberpunk wherein the trusts pretend loving us and caring about the planet when in cyberpunk they didn't give a soykaf and just accelerated the massive industrialization of the world and the unbridled large scale deployment of rampant electronics, most of which would have been possible if we had already been strip mining the moon and other nearby asteroids. Solarpunk is therefore decades too late to be some kind of anticipation of a possible grim future because it is the factual reality of the current times, and it's a lie.

Random · 2024-10-26 09:02

>>84972 >/cyb/ Any chan on this to recommend? There was one I visited twice a year and posted in, but I lost my PotatoCasket many years ago and lost the link, it was low PPH and comfy. I avoid the clop one like a plague.

Emmanuel · 2024-10-26 14:33

>>84975 Why does a literary genre have to be dystopian to be "deep"? Why does it need to prognosticate a grim future? I agree that solarpunk emerged basically as a reaction to cyberpunk and therefore doesn't have the same depth at all, but your other criticisms are basically " it's associated with leftoids therefore I don't like it". >and we would have to agree that we're living it so it could not be a free flowing field of creation for stories But we're pretty clearly not living it.

Six · 2024-10-26 15:36

>>84981 doesn't need to be dystopian but it does need conflict and there's no conflict in utopia.

Case · 2024-10-26 18:21

>>84982 I think Star Trek is quite utopian, but it still has conflict. "Conflict" in the literary sense means literally any obstacle that the characters need to overcome; that can be something as simple as a child trying to get some candy. A utopian setting that is not literally Heaven would still have conflict in this sense.

fsociety · 2024-10-26 23:00

>>84986 >star trek star trek (roddenberry) typically shys away from dealing directly with what life is like deep in the heart of the federation (or whatever it is). For the most part the show is life on the frontier, the heros pushing farther out into space, and dealing with decidedly non idyllic cultures and societies, and the disasters that threaten to destroy their cherished homes. And when you do look into the culture of the rest of the fleet and Earth/Federation society, we find it full of frauds and hubris and danger. Was Richard Daystrom an evil man ? No, but through his effective fraud, whatever motivated it, he leads to perhaps thousands of deaths. Or, when Spock returns home for his marriage to his betrothed, and even on that civilized planet it is only through the quick cunning of Dr. McCoy that both Kirk and Spock make it out alive--from a proper and very officious wedding procedure! The environment of the core characters is maybe utopic, a perfect team of colleagues working together very effectively, but the entire setting they operate in is full of hazards and chaos against which they are constantly pitted, and from which there seems to be no refuge (except perhaps quiet retirement back home, but who could live like that ehh). In TNG I think Roddenberry came to a stronger commitment to trying to make the federation and not merely the ship into an ideal society, and we see this in episodes like Conspiracy where IIRC the script was modified by Roddenberry because mutiny wouldn't happen in starfleet without active foreign infiltration being the driving cause. And still they are committedly focused not on the utopian federation itself but perpetually on the frontier where the utopia intersects with the rest of the world, only occasionally looking back. The distinctly non utopian nature of the frontier, even of groups allied with the Federation, is established even from the very first episode. I dont deny that you can have sorts of conflicts in utopia, but typically in scifi and other fiction genres besides if you have a particular setting it is there for a purpose because it furthers or advances the story. In Neuromancer this is a cyberpunk world where you have these big corporate players who dominate not just the story but the world, and the imagined dynamics of that world both give interest and perceived relevance to the story. The setting of Star Trek, the Wagon Train to the Stars, is of the world where we hit the West Coast, fill the interior, take a pit stop in Alaska and then head up to the final, endless frontier of space. The setting is that frontier: unknown, uncivilized, and not just a little dangerous, but susceptible to conquest. Hardly Utopia!

Apoc · 2024-10-27 00:30

>>84993 >The environment of the core characters is maybe utopic, a perfect team of colleagues working together very effectively, but the entire setting they operate in is full of hazards and chaos against which they are constantly pitted, That is essentially my entire point. Utopia does not mean lack of conflict. > you have a particular setting it is there for a purpose because it furthers or advances the story. The setting does not need to be dystopian for this to be true, though. Back to my example of a kid trying to get candy: the setting could be a sort of idyllic small town, because a child would not understand society at a deep enough level to see it as anything else. That could still serve the story well and there's no reason why such a story couldn't be good or "deep". Same goes for solarpunk, although there's no reason why such a setting needs to be so simplistic. The basic premise "this way of organizing society generally works" does not rule out all possible issues that such a society might face, be they natural disasters, political or social unrest, disputes over resources, technical challenges, etc. For an example, check out The Dispossessed. >The setting is that frontier: unknown, uncivilized, and not just a little dangerous, but susceptible to conquest. Hardly Utopia! By most measures, life on the Enterprise is a utopia, especially compared to the present day. In fact I would say that by most standards, Star Trek is more utopian than a typical solarpunk setting.

Void · 2024-10-27 07:02

>>84994 >same goes for solarpunk ok but Im keenly interested if you have any examples of decent solarpunk stories >life on the Enterprise is a utopia tell that to Ben Finney.

Delilah · 2024-10-27 17:37

>>85004 >ok but Im keenly interested if you have any examples of decent solarpunk stories For the reasons I said earlier, due to solarpunk being a reaction to cyberpunk, it's shallower in general. I just don't think a Utopian setting excludes the possibility of good storytelling. However now that I think about it, Station Eleven might count as some kind of posts apocalyptic solarpunk, and I thought it was quite good. >Ben Finney One single person having a bad time doesn't mean the setting is not Utopian.

Unsigned · 2024-10-27 18:27

>>85004 Try pic related, science fiction novel about a post scarcity world where technology has solved most problems, everyone's immortal and have no need to worry about money and so are instead concerned mainly with recurring existential crises and social media clout. I also liked the Wayfarers series, which reads a little like low stakes, fluff focused Star Trek fanfiction. The newer books by the same author also seem very explicitly solarpunk though I haven't read those yet.

Yu-ichi · 2024-10-28 07:10

Blue is blue and red is green. >>84981 >Why does a literary genre have to be dystopian to be "deep"? Why does it need to prognosticate a grim future? The bleakness is not a necessity but it certainly provides danger in much greater volumes. >your other criticisms are basically " it's associated with leftoids therefore I don't like it". That is reductive of my criticisms and it would not be such a problem if leftoid were but the shadow of what various types of leftists were almost half a century ago. No they're mostly concerned about how many blacks are on screen and whether someone has been hurt in the feels by some micro-aggression. It's pathetic. I cannot identify with these types and I cannot help but find them utterly pathetic and only worthy of scorn. Without much surprise these idiots fall for the most blatant nonsense too and if they had been honest as I said the solarpunk genre would have been different, but then would have been hitting way too close to home to be fancied as a mere fictional distraction, some form of dark escapism. Cyberpunk was like a horror story of some kind and it was fun to scare ourselves with such unnerving tales when things were objectively better so many decades ago. There is no substance in solarpunk, there's no punk at all to it when the only global enemy is a vague threat about ice melting. >But we're pretty clearly not living it. See, that's not a question of creativity about great adventures in a dangerous world but one of political acumen and bickerings over contemporary affairs. We're not talking about almost pulp drama painted against an epic backdrop, we're not looking at low life people trying to make it big, with solarpunk we are merely talking about real world events and just orbiting a globalist agenda with our silly talks here. Solarpunk would be much better off in libertarian and alt-right hands than where it currently resides where it stands as nothing more than window dressing for gullible ignoramuses so they more easily bow before the multi-trillion quackery just so that they welcome carbon credits without much conflict. Then and only then solarpunk would be of interest, but as I said it's too late and too realistic to be a fiction. That stuff would get censored or cancelled before it touched the ground, it's obviously very risky.

Batou · 2024-10-28 07:32

>>84994 >The Dispossessessessed Explain this to us please. >Trek It started as a rough Federation and communication latency was a thing. By the time of TNG it seems most issues have been ironed out and they're living a post scarcity system with synthetizers to produce simple goods. It seems to borrow a few concepts from communism but the premise seems awkward, because there is no explanation as to who does what, if there are castes or classes and who maintains the very advanced equipment. An old episode of TOS had androids working in mines IIRC but Trek conveniently skims this. Who does the work and why would people feel motivated to work at all? In the latest show this question seems to be partially solved as we see machines doing the work in places like Picard's vineyard, but who builds and repairs the robots? Society looks very comfy though.

Pulse · 2024-10-28 10:40

>>85013 >One single person having a bad time doesn't mean the setting is not Utopian. have you even watched star trek ? its full of random pointless death, unrequited love, accidents and vapourizations, even betrayal and mutiny and Finney isnt the only one. If life on the Enterprise is Utopia then so is Star Wars.

Neuromancer · 2024-10-28 12:46

>>85023 >with solarpunk we are merely talking about real world events and just orbiting a globalist agenda with our silly talks here. Again I wonder what you mean by solarpunk settings being "real world events". I don't know about you but I don't live in a green shire with a small, tight-knit anarchist community where I'm an android repairman or something. Do you mean that this thread has been constant bickering about real-world events? This is because people have a problem with solar power as an idea, it has nothing to do with solarpunk except the name. >>85024 >>The Dispossessessessed >Explain this to us please. Why? It's a good book, you should read it yourself. >>85026 > pointless death, unrequited love, accidents and vapourizations, even betrayal and mutiny and Finney isnt the only one Again, none of these make the setting non-utopian. Most of the time, people on the enterprise have no unmet material needs and few unmet material wants. They can convert a plentiful, cheap energy source directly into food. There appear to be no class divisions and the officers are mostly there by merit. If this is life on the dangerous frontier, then life in the federation is surely a utopia.

Demeere · 2024-10-28 16:11

>>85028 >Again I wonder what you mean by solarpunk settings being "real world events". I mean this "genre" is the most shallow and pretentious synthetic narrative background ever. Its supporters are harebrained redditors who cannot even find a definitive answer to the question of what are the two or three seminal works of fiction that define the genre. And if all there is to that genre is to say "let's live with solar panels", that's not a genre, even less the merest of the dullest of contemporary ideas. Nevertheless, anyone who tries to add more substance to that abortion of a trend with no real conception about what it wishes it were already finds himself getting closer to Schwabism while totally declawed if he ever attempts identifying antagonists other than pollution, meat eaters and evil carbon dioxide that kills the planet while feeding trees. Solarpunk is laughably superficial and manipulative, entirely made up of the lightest haze of green-coated Progressivism, the pseudo-narrative minded veneer of a tyrannical change in real world politics. A condescending, cute and naive dreamlike utopia behind which world wide power houses barely even try to hide, a simplistic level of politics presented through a mosaic of pretty pictures aimed at the most puerile and clueless audience possible, baby food for the leftist crowd that is so fond of this "sustainable" and "inclusive" bullshit.

XERXES · 2024-10-28 16:31

Here's an example that proves this "solarpunk" soykaf is nothing more than marxism with a green hue and which does its best to hide its true end goal. https://charge.co.za/solarpunk-movement/ Where the fuarrrk does antiracism, inclusivity and other blatant leftist keywords have anything to do with just living in a better natural environment again? It is insulting.

Case · 2024-10-28 16:32

>>85032 I think solarpunk had to happen. We are a culture that desire an original sin, a path of redemption, a moment that will change history from what it is to paradise on earth and every important movement have to include those elements to find a place in peoples of our culture. Fascism and communism, color nationalists and those who want all of us to mix so racism will die, science worshipers and antimodernists. It's not limited to religions. The climate movement have it's original sin, it's path to redemption, it's glorious day that will never happen when we will have done enough and the climate will be saved, it need a paradise on earth. It need a carrot. It need a light at the end of the tunnel, an end that justify the means.

Agent Smith · 2024-10-28 17:03

https://signalsfromtheedge.org/how-solarpunk-strives-to-rectify-our-future >Films too can fall into the solarpunk basket, most notably including the work of Studio Ghibli with Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and the representation of Wakanda in Black Panther. mysides.jpeg http://www.re-des.org/a-solarpunk-manifesto/ >The “punk” in Solarpunk is about rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decolonialism and enthusiasm. It's about Marxisms without using the word Marxism. Got it. >Solarpunk emphasizes environmental sustainability and social justice. >Solarpunk recognizes science fiction as not just entertainment but as a form of activism. >Solarpunk wants to counter the scenarios of a dying earth, an insuperable gap between rich and poor, and a society controlled by corporations. The entire climate change scam that is at the heart of soylarpun is the absolute brainchild of these large corporations. >Solarpunk is about youth maker culture, local solutions, local energy grids, ways of creating autonomous functioning systems. WTF does that mean? They utterly depend on large scale energy grids, if only to produce the very advanced technology and these new super cities. Absolute embarassment. >Solarpunk culture includes all cultures, religions, abilities, sexes, genders and sexual identities. Alphabet AIDS. >Solarpunk is the idea of humanity achieving a social evolution that embraces not just mere tolerance, but a more expansive compassion and acceptance. Wha >In Solarpunk we’ve pulled back just in time to stop the slow destruction of our planet. Stop the destrucshun!!! In a way I really long for the collapse of all this bullshit so we can go back to real matters and infuse a fair dose of brutality into our lives, just to get a tad more real.

Void · 2024-10-28 17:15

>>85032 Even if all of this is true, which I don't think it is, why would this mean we are "currently living solarpunk"? We're pretty clearly not. Solarpunk is very much fiction. It is not anything like a description of the current day; it's not even anything like the "you will own nothing and be happy" dystopia that WEF and others are promoting. It's just related to environmentalism and associated with the left wing, which I guess to you means that it's somehow simultaneously Marxist and backed by big business and governments around the world. >>85036 >Nausicaa can't be solarpunk, I like that movie! Lmao. >rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decoloniamism, and enthusiasm are Marxist the entire ideology of anarchism is Marxist now. Ok. The fact that almost all of the criticism in this thread amounts to "solarpunk is woke!" tells it all.

Unidentified · 2024-10-28 17:42

>>85037 >Solarpunk is very much fiction Certainly not. Read the material I provided. Solarpunk is an ongoing activist movement (not my words) defined as the march towards an ideal, LARPing as a philosophical theme for entertainment book authors and dimwitted intellectuals. The changes it aspires to are already happening. Its alarmist message is blared 24/7 through our TV's speakers. The solution is the same: less carbon, more sustainability, high technology. It couldn't be more now. You're in complete denial. >which I guess to you means that it's somehow simultaneously Marxist and backed by big business and governments around the world. Are you even aware that Marxism was supported by Western banking and that the Communism vs Capitalism opposition is all smoke and mirrors? That Hollywood, the great dream machine of the most Capitalist country ever, had no qualms sliding Communist messages in its movies? That in fact it was infiltrated by communists? >rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decoloniamism, and enthusiasm are Marxist >the entire ideology of anarchism is Marxist now. Ok. The whole list of characteristics you just retyped is literally pure nuMarxism. Let me help you here my slow friend. >rebellion Revolution >counterculture Cancel culture. >post-capitalism Core tenet of Marxism. >decolonialism Already denounced in Marxism and totally espoused by radical leftism. >enthusiasm ? Belongs to no one or to all so that's not a receivable point. >The fact that almost all of the criticism in this thread amounts to "solarpunk is woke!" tells it all. Seethe and cope.

Bobby Newmark · 2024-10-28 18:36

>>85038 >Are you even aware that Marxism was supported by Western banking and that the Communism vs Capitalism opposition is all smoke and mirrors? OHHH I get it. "Marxism" just means "stuff I don't like". That explains a lot. > Hollywood, the great dream machine of the most Capitalist country ever, had no qualms sliding Communist messages in its movies? The people writing the scripts were/are often communists, and a lot of them got blacklisted from the industry for doing so. Nowadays of course, the feeling of righteous rebellion is a hot commodity and people are docile enough that you could literally yell at them " you have nothing to lose but your chains!" For an hour and they wouldn't do anything of substance in response. >seethe and cope dilate. Eagerly awaiting your next screed.

Koichiro · 2024-10-29 04:28

>>85039 Maybe if you proceeded to cite attributes specific to anarchism you would not look so much like an idiot. You may also try to refute the points, anytime. >The people writing the scripts were/are often communists, and a lot of them got blacklisted from the industry for doing so. A lot? Don't be silly. Hollywood and the press tried their best to keep them and give them work whereas only the most critical few cases in the 40s and 50s had to be kept at bay, all because of public pressure. That pressure always came from outside Hollywood, not from within. Besides Hollywood is not limited to writers either. It includes actors and above all producers, the latter who hardly suffered at all through the decades. During the sixties the blacklisting was not even taken seriously and communists were absolved and progressively taken back in. As soon as the seventies started it was definitely over despite all of this happening at the height of the Cold War. And obviously since that time it only got worse. So yes, you're most assuredly full of it. You glitterboys are nothing more than shameless grifters stealing for yourselves older works solely on the most superficial basis of them featuring ample amounts of greenness while conveniently ignoring all the elements that are against your deranged ideology. You monopolize ecology by pretending being only your concern and try to swallow anything remotely militant and ecological under your made-up bullshit umbrella of a pseudo-genre. Most people are not opposed to ecology, but solarpunk is certainly not limited to that. It advocates for social justice which we know covers anything from radical feminism to LGBT, immigration (and shifting the blame of rampant crime on purely economical reasons), affirmative action and inclusion, and the use of modern technology which is claimed to be clean when it is simply not, all backed by one big lie about carbon. Whether one likes or not Nausicaä, where do you find all of this subversive slime in Miyazaki's movie? Next you'll tell me that Ted was a solarpunkist when we both know he'd have bombed the fck out of you all if he could have.

Tyrell Wellick · 2024-10-29 06:20

>>85036 You have your finger on it, but solarpunk fans will refuse to see it. >Valley of the Wind and Wakanda Yeah, so magical science in works of fictions. Tell me again why I need to pay more taxes. Punk mean dirty. What's interesting in the []punk is the stories of the people left behind and their struggle. When it assume that everyone is free and equal and happy, how do you do that? >Solarpunk recognizes science fiction as not just entertainment but as a form of activism. Annnnnnd, here we go. >>85038 >Solarpunk is an ongoing activist movement (not my words) defined as the march towards an ideal, Odd how it coincide with another political movement that has failled horribly and now try to not use the old name. >The changes it aspires to are already happening. Coincidences everywhere. Historical materialism with a mask. Some business benefit from the fight against climate change and lobby for more, some stand to loose their income from it and lobby against. When the people who create solarpunk content tell us that solarpunk is exactly what the woke ideology is, we have to call a cat a cat. >>85039 Not him but the communist movement in Imperial Russia was created by the German Empire. Thankfully, it have been hijacked by the criminal named Stalin.

Motoko Kusanagi · 2024-10-29 07:52

>>85046 >Punk mean dirty. What's interesting in the []punk is the stories of the people left behind and their struggle. When it assume that everyone is free and equal and happy, how do you do that? Easy: with total cognitive dissonance. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-solarpunk-named-such-if-there-isnt-really-a-lot-of-punk-It-seems-too-utopian-for-the-genre >Profile photo for Assistant >Assistant >Bot >While solarpunk is often seen as a more utopian vision compared to other "punk" genres, it still embodies elements of the punk ethos in several ways: > > Rebellion Against the Status Quo: Solarpunk challenges the dominant industrial and capitalist paradigms, advocating for sustainable living and ecological responsibility. This aspect aligns with the rebellious spirit of punk. The Status Quo comprises heavy industry polluters. It has to in order for the opposition's existence to make sense. But none of these dirty polluters are found engaging money in opposing the alarmists. They have no representation in mainstream medias at all. Funny that. The "rebellion" is the camp that denounces the Anthropogenic Climate Change, from megacorporations to mainstream medias to NGO's to literally every single leftwing soy user at the bottom of the ladder, the usual useful idiots. All looking elsewhere when they buy Chinese soykaf that is definitely produced at great environmental costs it would seem. > Community and DIY Ethos: Much like punk culture, solarpunk emphasizes grassroots movements, community building, and do-it-yourself (DIY) solutions. It encourages individuals and communities to take action in creating sustainable environments. Be free and independent is the most mainstream American value ever. Less government, less socialism. In cyberpunk, the "punks" were oscillating between cheap labor and a life of criminality as outcasts, all often using violence against their peers or more rarely against a global structure that wasn't oppressive because it hurt people in their feelings but because it was a world wide techno-feudalistic monolith of the worst kind. Which, leaving out the most far fetched forms of unscientific and fanciful embodiements of the imagination, turns out to be exactly what we are facing today. Then what happened? There came an all too artificial genre that denounces cyberpunk as grim, aims to replace it and tries to sell us blue skies and green pastures by fighting against Western powers that yet totally support and fund this same fight. Go figure! These soylarpun people can't even denounce immigration used as leverage against indigenous workers like old Karl did. It's as if the entire "artistic" movement was the test tube creation of corporations that succeeded in hijacking a genuine need of a rebellion against globalism, by throwing a whole bucket of green phosphorous paint at it so the pill could be easily swallowed by hobos. No wonder why it glows so much. > Diverse Narratives: Solarpunk often includes a wide range of voices and perspectives, particularly from marginalized communities. This inclusivity reflects the punk tradition of challenging societal norms and hierarchies. The real punks were nothing more than pretentious posers for the most part. > Vision of Resistance: While solarpunk is generally optimistic, it still acknowledges the struggles and resistance necessary to achieve a sustainable future. This tension between hope and struggle mirrors the complexities often found in punk narratives. Their definitions are so lax and all-encompassing that they don't offer any kind of sufficiently focused coherence to be taken seriously. Anyone who has hopes and struggles is a punk now. Imagine writing a book about one's struggle, full of hope for a change. >In essence, while solarpunk may appear more utopian, it retains the core values of the punk movement by promoting social change, environmental justice, and a departure from conventional societal structures. The unending revolt that never manages to make the world any better. This bot's word soup is nevertheless a good representation of the core principles of the solarpunk movement.

Aristóteles Amadópulus · 2024-10-29 10:16

https://signalsfromtheedge.org/lunarpunk-solarpunk >Can There Be a Solarpunk Without Lunarpunk? >totally unjoking

Anamika · 2024-10-29 13:37

>>84972 >(Does FRB even go back 500 years? ) Some people trace it back to nimrod of babylon but who knows when you're going that far back in time. http://whale.to/c/farrells.html It's not a complex scam. Once you've got a guy in town who stores valuable things like gold or grain it's not a massive leap of imagination to loan out those valuable things at interest since the people who are storing it are not using it right now anyway. >usury separately has its own long recognized ones There is nothing wrong with usury. The fact that some unintelligent people cut their legs off with chainsaws is not a "problem" with chainsaws. >>84973 >Incorrect. Interest is not mandatory in the generation of any fiat currency. He is correct that all fiat today is generated through loans. Some quantitative easing occurs through zero interest loans but they are still loans. >Money is a tool and if you don't have enough of that tool you cannot do enough work Then you stack different tiers of money like gold for big purchases and silver for smaller purchases. There is never a need to have a "trusted" authority who creates new money out of nothing, that power will always be abused. >By definition no money "exist" until it is created. Salt or gold didn't exist until they were collected and transformed. You are just being obstinate and contrarian now. Obviously you understand the difference between a person who gives you an IOU for a gold coin that is in his physical possession and a person who gives you an IOU for a gold coin he is merely pretending to have. The second case is fraud in every way except legally. >>85039 >OHHH I get it. "Marxism" just means "stuff I don't like". That explains a lot. Most corporations and billionaires are infact socialists in that they want the means of production centralized under the state because they control the politicians and bureaucrats who run the state through money. And likewise you want the means of production centralized under the state because you think you control the politicians through "democracy". Needless to say one of you is deluded.

Spike Spiegel · 2024-10-29 14:51

>>85052 Moonpunk have a potential -unlike solarpunk-, the hard survival of a handfew of nammed people who struggle against 100 forms of death, having to fix stuff without tools or parts, possibly being left to behind by gov agencies or rich megalomanes with no other future than a certain death, no chance to escape and hard choices having to be made every hour for entire years. It does have an incredible potential but not as a newage religion solarpunk.

Roger Pollack · 2024-10-29 15:11

>>85057 ahem excuse me its called *lunarpunk*

Wintermute · 2024-10-29 15:12

>>85057 First half moonpunk second half solarpunk

Tank · 2024-10-31 00:45

>>85055 >Most corporations and billionaires are infact socialists in that they want the means of production centralized under the state No, they want the means of production centralized under their corporations. Look in the trends in how they spend their bribe money: the pattern is loosening regulations that help me, tightening regulations that hurt my competitors. There is *no* talk of centralized means of production in mainstream US political discourse, and there would be if they wanted it. > likewise you want the means of production centralized under the state Bold assumption, and utterly false. At most I'd say I'm a market socialist, and I'm generally for a smaller state. If I were a "solarpunk", I would be an anarchist who wants the total abolition of the state. Anyway, I'm off to JewBank to go cash my Soros checks. Have a good one m8.

Lunch · 2024-11-01 14:31

>>85088 Having all means of productions controlled by the politburo or by the administrative board is the same except on aesthetic. >Market >Socialism You do not have the right to own things that can generate a profit. You do not have the right to exchange a thing you have for a thing you want. You do not even have the right to sell your labor. In fact, money is illegal. What you want is reformism, also called capitalism with a strong involvment of the state in the economy.

Koichiro · 2024-11-01 16:52

>>85116 >Having all means of productions controlled by the politburo or by the administrative board is the same except on aesthetic. It's quite different. Walmart and Amazon don't collect taxes. >I don't know what market socialism is Look up what words mean before you critique them. Market socialism isn't an abstract ideal either; most socialist states have some form of market socialism, although usually not enough, and usually hampered by dictatorship. The success of a socialist economy is almost perfectly correlated with how closely it adheres to the principles of market socialism.

Nameless · 2024-11-01 20:25

>>85116 >>85122 > Look up what words mean before you critique them. This. I've heard closest to Market Socialism was Tito's Yugoslavia though even that wasn't quite it. >>85122 > Walmart and Amazon don't collect taxes. They make profit largely off of the value from the labour of employees before they give them their paychecks. They also subtract more from pay if they offer retirement plans, and benefits. So it isn't really that different from taxes. Walmart and Amazon and the like have more employees than some countries have people and their profits are more than some country's GDPs. >success of a socialist economy Kind of a strange term when you think about it. Success in capitalism is measured purely in dollar signs of money exchanging hands but I think a socialist economy and any should be measured directly by the well being of the people, but this goes beyond just the economy. I would just call it resource management and distribution. Many wanna-be economists try to falsely claim well being is directly correlated with GDP per capita but even bad things can raise the GDP per capita and they call anything else an externality. Comically they ignore their own logic when you point out the USSR had a better GDP per capita than most other countries being it did not go through a recession in that time period that others did. >>85059 >moonpunk The fuarrrk is moonpunk? I think you just made that up. Looking it up seems the only term similar in name is lunarpunk but that doesnt sound like it matches the plot Im finding of that novel.

Joe Bloggs · 2024-11-01 20:32

>>85127 >The fuarrrk is moonpunk? Read the rest of the comment chain

Miho Iwakura · 2024-11-01 21:04

>>85127 >I think a socialist economy and any should be measured directly by the well being of the people So should capitalist economies :) Still, by pretty much any measure, socialism goes quite well with markets. Better than capitalism does, in many regards. Unfortunately since a socialist revolution requires military strength to establish itself (lest it go the way of Chile), you basically have to just try and hope that the Central Committee or whoever doesn't turn into a bunch of paranoid, self-serving despots once they are in power, which seems rare. >and that's why socialism is bad! The same thing applies when someone friendly to capitalist interests siezes power too. Just look at what happened to Russia. Anyway, none of this is really relevant to solarpunk. >>85057 Indeed! While not exactly "lunarpunk", Kim Stanley Robinson has created this sort of hypothetical future which certainly has some of these elements. Starting with the "_ Mars" series. Really hard sci fi, but a lot of it is more about how society might develop as humans begin to colonize space. Very interesting reads. >>85059 Ugh. I wanted to like that book, but the second half just sucked. It doesn't make sense that any humans at all would survive anywhere in the earth's crust.

XERXES · 2024-11-02 11:23

>>85055 >It's not a complex scam. So it's a simple scam? >Once you've got a guy in town who stores valuable things like gold or grain it's not a massive leap of imagination to loan out those valuable things at interest since the people who are storing it are not using it right now anyway. First of all, that guy stores valuables (grain, salt, gold, etc.) which are not his. Next, linking being a host of third party wealth and then claiming it legitimizes the lending of it at interest is a non-sequitur. >There is nothing wrong with usury. Aside from the fact that it destroys the value of money over time in our modern economies and allows lenders to foreclose on precious assets with little effort, which has been true for thousands of years and that this can hit small people like an entire nation. If you were cautious you would never want to be exposed to usury. >He is correct that all fiat today is generated through loans. Some quantitative easing occurs through zero interest loans but they are still loans. Of course since all our economies are now run according to the same debt-driven model, which puts all of us and our nations under a global type of slavery until further notice. >Then you stack different tiers of money like gold for big purchases and silver for smaller purchases. There is never a need to have a "trusted" authority who creates new money out of nothing, that power will always be abused. Nazi Germany would like to have a word with you. In classical Muslim economics it's also pretty much discouraged if not outright forbidden. Had Gaddafi managed to put in place his own type of money, chances are high that loans would have proceeded with little to no interests as the point was to bring freedom and prosperity to African nations, not to fill the pockets of bankers. >You are just being obstinate and contrarian now. Obviously you understand the difference between a person who gives you an IOU for a gold coin that is in his physical possession and a person who gives you an IOU for a gold coin he is merely pretending to have. The second case is fraud in every way except legally. In this case I agree with you. >Most corporations and billionaires are infact socialists in that they want the means of production centralized under the state because they control the politicians and bureaucrats who run the state through money. And likewise you want the means of production centralized under the state because you think you control the politicians through "democracy". Needless to say one of you is deluded. It's often forgotten that the means of production under communism were always put into the hands of the state, for the sake of the people because only the state knew how to manage that, and in the most hypocritical way it allowed to think they owned these tools where ownership by freedom of purchase power and thus, according to the theory, an open door to inequality therefore, was rather ideologically squashed. As the production would be maintained as to deliver only what was deemed necessary for each citizen, there was no point producing more of it, nor any logic in trying to create any added value. In the end the people possessed nothing and were just working on what was strictly needed as per the central planning of the day. >in b4 we never saw true communism

Undisclosed · 2024-11-02 11:24

>>85057 >Moonpunk have Have? Why plural? Is there something I missed about the definition of this micro-genre? It also sounds like colonypunk because these conditions would be found anywhere an environment is excessively hostile to humans who labor everyday to maintain the safety of their sealed domain: on Mars, on an asteroid, in a space station, underwater, next to range of volcanoes, a floating ship, etc. In such a context, the production of energy would be dwarfed by the more urgent requirements regarding the structural integrity of the habitat and the production of food and the recycling of drinkable water. In other words, if one thought that solarpunk already was a forced genre, then lunarpunk is as contrived as trying to snatch light from the tug of a super massive black hole. >>85088 IOW >all the resources of the Earth shall be managed by a few hundred super trusts I'm trying to paraphrase the original.

Batou · 2024-11-02 11:31

>>85127 >I think a socialist economy and any should be measured directly by the well being of the people, but this goes beyond just the economy. That goes without saying. Happiness, the well being of one's family, a sense of confidence in the future and security, a profound idea of pride of one's people, a balanced and healthy relation with nature. And above all, the fight for beauty in everything.

Cereal Killer · 2024-11-02 13:02

>>85129 >but the second half just sucked. It doesn't make sense that any humans at all would survive anywhere in the earth's crust. IIRC the book presented the bottleneck issue as the consumable physical resources for making new lightbulbs for growing more food underground, but I don't know enough to think why this would be wrong and something else would definitely prevent their success. I personally liked the whole thing mostly on novelty factor, I hadn't read a book that was structured like that before.

Tank · 2024-11-02 17:27

>>85152 >IIRC the book presented the bottleneck issue as the consumable physical resources for making new lightbulbs for growing more food underground The thing is that you've got to deal with extremely intense seismic activity as well, to the point where it's quite possible for the crust to just crack open and flood your bunkers or caves or whatever with lava. That doesn't necessarily make it unrealistic for people to survive underground, but all the oceans would be evaporated, so living in ocean trenches makes no sense at all. I feel that the ocean people were unrealistic. >I personally liked the whole thing mostly on novelty factor, I hadn't read a book that was structured like that before. Fair enough, it definitely was interesting.

Nobody important · 2024-11-05 00:47

>>85160 It takes enormous amounts of energy to vaporize oceans. Far less than it takes for the crust to crack in a way that underground bunkers would be compromised.

Lunch · 2024-11-05 00:52

>>85224 Billions of tons of meteorites with enough energy to leave lunar orbit and hit the earth would be more than enough to do it. also spoiler you impolite fuarrrk

Demeere · 2024-11-05 00:59

>>85225 Spoiler what? I'm stating a mere scientific fact, not caring about your entertainment. I'm not the other anon. >Billions of tons of meteorites with enough energy to leave lunar orbit and hit the earth would be more than enough to do it. The energy needed to shove a planet is so immense that said world would be wrecked beyond use, and because of that, the evaporation of oceans would be the least of your concerns.

Apoc · 2024-11-06 03:25

Minus the more far-fetched aspects of technology, cyberpunk could quite be said to have been spot on. Should we be surprised that an entire fake genre has been created to counter it and take us back into a soporific dream-like state wherein no battle against an overbearing oppressive system could ever truly happen?

John Titor · 2024-11-06 10:47

>>85227 Do you even know the premise of Seveneves? Shut the fuarrrk up about things you clearly know nothing about and don't care about.

fsociety · 2024-11-08 11:55

There are two problems with solarpunk. The first is that its not a developed genre or subculture and some of the key works (like Miyazaki films) never claimed to be solarpunk. The second is that it has no clear political component despite its proponents thinking it does. Cyberpunk was vaguely anarchistic and anti-capitalist but without endorsing an ideology. Solarpunk is just regurgitation of dead 20th century ideologies with most of the people behind it being internet Marxists. What the hell even is solarpunk? When I see solarpunk stuff, its indistinguishable from a lot of steampunk and biopunk. I'm not knocking it but there needs to be more to keep people interested.

Yu-ichi · 2024-11-09 05:47

>>85283 Solar punk is meant as suggesting the end of capitalism for a brighter future. Capitalists are more into nuclear because it is a limited resource which wont alter geopolitics against the economic system when they run out of oil. Solar is often overlooked as only a momentary novelty in capitalism used purely for gimmick to sell products by claiming their polluting wasteful company is green because their coffee pot is solar.

Undisclosed · 2024-11-09 08:56

>>85386 "Capitalists" are far more interested in "renewables" because they represent a far more lucrative profit margin. And they're absolute dogshit so you can keep pushing them forever to solve the problem and it will never get solved. An endless grift. You can only build nuke plants for so long before you totally solve the energy problem and then you are stuck making such a low margin that it basically has to be nationalized and managed by a public trust. Solarpunk is fake and gay netflix bullshit. It's a google doodle. Libtard candy

Cat Mother · 2024-11-09 09:29

>>85386 Also as far as "limited resource"--the only rare resource nuclear really needs is uranium ore, of which it needs a minuscule amount per kWh and is actually quite plentiful and has many different independent geographic sources. Hell, the commies sure love nuclear too, what's that tell you? Renewables need countless VERY rare earth metals and boatloads of copper, extremely difficult battery technology at extremely large scales, and all of it has an expected lifespan of like ~5 years. Then it needs to be replaced. And recycling the stuff is like kicking dead whales down the beach. You know most people aren't going to do it, like with normal recycling. If anything, "renewable" energy (it's only renewable if you childishly look at very superficial inputs, like "ooooh the wind always blows tomorrow" otherwise it's absolute soykaf) is absolutely the stealth resource extraction scheme. The Africa child mines will have to 100x to convert to renewables. Cobalt and lithium alone. Neodymium. Of course they greenwash it because that is the corporate thing to do nowadays. Tl;dr: cyberpunk, solarpunk, it's the same photo. You gotta think that stuff through a lot harder

Ender · 2024-11-09 09:37

>>85388 >You can only build nuke plants for so long before you totally solve the energy problem Same with the solar panels - at some point, the energy becomes so abundant it becomes pointless to replace the decayed panels with the fresh ones. Nuclear would be best option if all the land was precious, but there's so much worthless land on the planet, not filling it with solar panels is silly. If you cover half the Mojave desert with solar panels, it will cover all of the current US energy needs even after the 50% efficiency drop from 20% to 10% over time. Yes, you do spend energy manufacturing the panels, but it snowballs - the more panels you produce - the cheaper is the energy to produce more.

Judge Fang · 2024-11-09 10:01

>>85391 So you'd just be endlessly blanketing untouched wilderness (I happen to really like the Mojave desert) with solar panels, just leaving up the ones that have gone sub-50% efficiency, not even bothering to take them down and recycle them, just keep manufacturing more and blanketing more land (certainly won't be any second-order effects there)... You don't see that this is precisely the "capitoooolist" endless-termite-resource-extraction nightmare you claim it solves? Or we can build a couple nuke plants and use almost zero land (including for waste disposal which is actually very easy if you just convert all the libtard lawyers from California into biodiesel) and not need to rely on China megafactories and Africa mines and endlessly converting "useless" "unused" "empty" landscapes into parking lots coated in rapidly-decaying glass and silicon (which is obviously bad and you have clearly deluded yourself if you think that is just fine and no big deal). But yeah you can plaster all of this over with cottagecore-for-yardsign-democrats green Moebius comics-style aesthetics. But can't you see what you are really doing? Of course the reality will be Sino-future infinite plastic floating in stagnant water favela soykafhole world with trash lying around everywhere

Chani · 2024-11-09 10:12

>>85388 >"Capitalists" are far more interested in "renewables" because they represent a far more lucrative profit margin. What's interesting is google, amazon. microsoft cutting out the greedy corrupt legacy energy suppliers and building their own nuclear power stations for their next generation data centers. That's how the market fixes itself.

Tequila · 2024-11-09 10:14

>>85393 I would like to read more about this

Cat Mother · 2024-11-09 10:20

>>85391 >You can only build nuke plants for so long before you totally solve the energy problem >Same with the solar panels, except you have to keep building more of them for ever and ever ?????

Armitage · 2024-11-09 11:45

Every engineer on planet earth: Please just build nuclear, it's proven and mature technology Vapid middle-aged big glasses women who works at an NGO: Uhhhmmm sweaty that plan is just sooo not brat, we need to coat every single coastline on the planet with 800 million wind turbines and cause the complete extinction of the avian clade. And turn any landscape that isn't already a migrant shelter or a soybean field into a sheet of black glass and aluminum. It's green, look at this painting of a cute Miyazaki landscape with a solar panel on a rooftop and a windmill blimp

Unspecified · 2024-11-09 11:50

>>85391 I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of this. Aside the ecological harm, that seems like a horribly inefficient means of providing energy to people. Most people on earth live far away from uninhabitable regions. Energy is lost over the distance it is transferred. So much energy would be wasted. I dont know if the rare earth minerals used in the panels can be reused for other panels, I assume they cant but I really dont know, and if they cant, they arent any less finite than fossil fuels. Doing this only reduces longevity. Putting all of your power generators in a few isolated places. What if there are natural disasters? What if there is some kind of attack against critical infrastructure. To me it seems best to have safely designed nuclear reactors placed strategically around the country to maximize efficiency. To prevent idiots from being idiots there could be a government agency to perform random inspections of nuclear power plants to ensure they are being safe.

Cat Mother · 2024-11-09 12:43

>>85398 The distribution would be soykaf. The thermal regulation with random sub-10% efficiency old panels littered everywhere would be a nightmare, tons of high-resistance loops and eventually electrical fires. And let's not forget it stops working at night and has vastly lower capacity in the off season, necessitating even more land use for unobtanium batteries which are awful, use even more rare minerals, and also degrade at a miserably fast rate. All of it is obviously a techno-optimist handwave. Somebody from reddit who fell for the Solar Freakin' Roadways hoax ages ago as well no doubt. And probably ignorant of the mountains of semiconductor dopants and other accessory materials which make quickly-expiring renewable energy solutions anything but renewable. They just require continuous extraction of dozens of nightmarish heavy metals from the earth instead of oil. And as far as reusing the minerals from old panels: it is technically possible, but the process is incredibly intensive and scales badly and is so uneconomical that the current paradigm (of course) is to throw it in the trash and build more every five or so years forever. We have all the solutions we need, we are only blocked by idiots with an axe to grind and an NGO sinecure to keep that depends on promoting retarded corn ethanol/exploding high-pressure hydrogen tank/algae bloom fields/solar Chinese trashmaxxing/ultra-fool wind turbine bird puree but it looks cute and dutch/whatever other libtard fantasy they will indulge in to avoid using the N-word

Terzibashjian · 2024-11-09 12:59

>>85394 >I would like to read more about this https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/business/energy-environment/amazon-google-microsoft-nuclear-energy.html

Roger Pollack · 2024-11-09 13:12

>>85403 tyvm, I looks forward to finding out how feasible it is for them to build these

Joey · 2024-11-09 13:22

>>85403 >>85404 This startup they mention building the modular microreactors with low pressure cores and self-cooling shutdown is interesting: https://kairospower.com/technology/

Faye Valentine · 2024-11-09 14:27

>>85398 > Energy is lost over the distance it is transferred We've been over this in this thread. Line losses are not the absolute killer that you might assume they are-- power dissapation is a function of current, not power, and with high voltages you can transmit megawatts across thousands of kilometers with losses of less than 10%, if you include losses from stepping up & down from that high voltage. Every major grid already does this. >Putting all of your power generators in a few isolated places This is generally considered good because if there is some kind of disaster (oil or coal explosion, radioactive waste release, dam failure, wind tower falls over, electrical fire at solar plant) it is unlikely to cause loss of life. Most people don't like living near power plants either. For the aforementioned reason that line losses are not that big of an issue, there is no need to weigh distance to consumers very heavily when it comes to site selection. It is no problem to put your power plants 10, 100, or even 1000 km from your major population centers. Nuclear plants especially need ideal site selection for safety reasons and generally they end up very far from population centers. >>85405 The main application for small modular reactors is and always has been military. They are probably worthless for civilian purposes, except in some very specific cases. Why use a new, relatively untested design that is probably less efficient because it can't take advantage of economies of scaling, when we have proven designs that can be built and operated today? Just like controlled fusion, its main merit is novelty. People in the tech sector are obsessed with novelty, but for civil infrastructure we need something proven and practical and oftentines that means old.