Solarpunk - 3rd Phase

Lo and behold! here's a topic that wouldn't die. Several questions and random ideas have been covered and could perhaps even need a revival. Meanwhile we're branching out into larger topics that orbit the overall question of what-the-fick is solarpunk and how it can help us cook better in the future. So prepare your dried soykaf rations, lube those cyberslots, dust off those very sloppy emerald disks, untangle all your cables and plug yourselves into the gonzo grid of infinite goat physics and astral realities so we can continue yapping about the socio-politico-techno-philosophical genre that is not a genre but for some reason exists in two different places. Previous threads >>78190 >>85465 in b4 >you should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf

Here is a nicer pic that will gain more traction, lain.

Trees are mostly made of air, carbon. And charcoal is just wood burned in an oxygen-less environment. It's fuel made from trees. That's pretty solarpunk. The secrets to refining it further have been stolen from us though.

>>91184 What's the point of the dome? Creating an environment with increase temperature and humidity? Why would you even bother when the local environment is clearly very rich already?

Solarpunk cannot continue without ruthless criticism of Marxism and its doctrines which have stunted everything. The biggest problem is Marx's foolish assumption that there is a more or less infinite supply of resources on Earth. His observations of how capital expands should have led him to think about how can (probably will at this point) turn Earth into a dust bowl. Green Marxism only furthers the mythology of Marxism without criticizing it. This is not acceptable.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD? WHAT THE fuarrrk?

>>91197 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>>91194 if I had to make something up: winter

lets kickstart the thread. https://youtu.be/KWsTEoVrlf4 thoughts on this?

>>91233 This seems to be a great introduction to Solarpunk.

>>91197 huh? wasn’t it the biggest thread and landmark of Lainchan?

>>91233 dangit explain this dont just post random jewtoob linx, what is this video whats it about you could even just post the video straight onto lain if its small enough, cmon show some respect

Pipes used to be made out of wood like barrels. Lots of tech has been "deprecated" so that vested interests can fleece people for more money, and gain control over infrastructure taking away power from individuals.

>>91243 they have been replacing the metal pipes with plastic now so you can enjoy more microplastics in your blood.

>>91243 I like the old fashioned nesting ceramic pipes but I assume if you can do solid its better. maybe you could do nested ceramic with seals every yard and it would be OK. Wood seems tough, has to survive both the soil and the contents....possibly OK in an arid region, but other materials better

Oh goodie, another one of those threads where you idiots are seriously arguing over air ship and blip technology while Spain was minutes away from a total electric grid failure after having attempted to implement some of the measures that were discussed in the previous threads. And as much as I enjoyed playing Crimson Skies or my off grid solar panels, it is at this point that I can't take anyone on this topic seriously any more. And even just here, we've turned off all our nuclear plants despite getting into a conflict with a major gas exporter we heavily relied on. There's so little reasonable thought in this. I don't even know if these are about actual "renewable" energy sources in the real world or it's just a bunch of soy latte slurping game designers pontificating about concepts that look cool to them on paper. Or if it's some thematic scifi setting to explore similar to the other -punks or you think your socialist manifesto was in need of some more flair. Because some of you seem so detached from reality that it's frankly becoming concerning and dangerously stupid. >>91243 I mean come on now! You can't tell me that you consider yourself so smart that everyone should just adopt your amazing ideas while clearly not knowing what happens to wood that's buried in wet soil! While worried about the side effects of PVC and other lining, mass manufacture is cheap and it's leave and forget. Even metal pipes rust at some point which is especially bad if these are inaccessible under a cement slab. But wooden pipes? That are much more laborious to produce and will rot away after just a few years? If that was a genuine suggestion then I worry that posters head is made of the same material. >>91184 Again, just game concept art. While it looks pleasant to be self sustaining, far away from the greater population and its collective retardation, with cool futuristic tech that magically doesn't need massive, global logistic chains or much maintenance, the question remains unanswered: What about the greater population? Where the hell are all the Mega City 1s? The farms of pods? Or the methods discussed to drastically reduce the population or to deindustrialize or "degrowth" further while somehow retaining the same level of production and technology, let alone develop it or achieve any of the major scientific break throughts that we need? Why is it that all this solarpunk stuff is just a liberal moron's or tech bro's version of a cottage farm fantasy? At least I can now post a stashed reply after the previous round of midwittery hit the bump limit. Like even the person claiming to be OP and providing a name and email >>88599 still just sounds like a soykafpost to me. >Studio Ghibli ideology fuarrrking hell! Are you even old enough to post here? This would be amusing at best if it wasn't this type of sentiment that's pushing us closer to a serious energy crisis. >>88541 >they’re supplying this directly to virtue investors / venture capitalists Good, tell them they're being retards unless they're just trying to scam the tax payer. >>88105 >>88104 >>88103 >>88103 >accessing these high-altitude winds in a range from 500 m (1600 ft) to 1500 m (5000 ft) So we need to come up with how to mass produce nano tube lanyards first then? Since those blips wont stay stationary on their own while pulled by stratospheric winds. In addition to some other tech to transmit the power without frying the cord and otherwise keep those things from coming lose or posing a danger to others. >>89454 >houses maybe 500 yuppies max who only meditate all day while living off their trust fund >no farms, only parks with trimmed lawns and tennis courts, thus still reliant on external systems >footprint of approx. 30-50 hectares McMansion suburbia is more efficient than this marketing pic of a supposedly efficient future. >>89463 Based Titus, choosing a low tech lifestyle. >How do you write a good story with this setup? The movie Snow Piercer comes to mind, does it count? Real solarpunk is a post-collapse trailer park colony who's defending themselves against the remaining sanfran junkies and imported thirdies who aren't getting their EBTs any more. All while the chinese components keep eventually failing from wear. Or going off grid mad max style like this guy >>>>87688 "solarpunk philosophers", if you can even call it that, probably think people opposing them are just ignorant plebians hooked on big oil propaganda or something but in reality it's just people calling out the pure retardation that comes from a lack of understanding of the challenges that the real world poses to engineering and practicality. Simply just adding some shrubbery won't make us go net zero. Go out, leave your ivory tower for a day and touch some grass. Endangering the whole power grid and forcing industrial degrowth is also not going to save the planet. You need people to actually care about the future in order to want to be ecologically conscious and able to afford the more expensive fair trade and built to last/be repaired products. Meanwhile the people who push for this seem to want the exact opposite, increasingly unaffordable cost of living or having children, reducing opportunity and mobility, causing cultural and spiritual death, importing literal bronze age people to make natives strangers in their own country, the list goes on. While only giving places like China who do not care about any of this more space and power to be reckless with resources, nature, climate and pollution. Can you see why people don't align with you on this? And sure, you can believe that you can simply force your way on people, thinking you have it all figured out. Vax em with gene modified mosquitos, dim the sun with cloud seeding, mush their mind with added florid in the water supply and propaganda media 24/7, control thoughts and beliefs to not have your wish thinking and "green realpolitik" be challenged by some pesky reality. Ultimately treating the population as de facto cattle but with extra steps. But it is most likely hubris that comes before the fall. Read the story of Ikarus, it's not just some video game. In short, it's important to dream but moreso to not get trapped in your delusions. And not destroying everyone else with their ignorance.

>>91307 >But wooden pipes? That are much more laborious to produce and will rot away after just a few years? If that was a genuine suggestion then I worry that posters head is made of the same material. to be fair, as recently as the seventies the US has used what amount to tar paper pipes. They work! I have seen them in use and clearly survived decades of real operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_pipe not saying we should bring them back into widespread use just that its not as bad as you might think!

>>91307 >And even just here, we've turned off all our nuclear plants despite getting into a conflict with a major gas exporter we heavily relied on. There's so little reasonable thought in this. when your government is stopping its power plants while the neighboring government is building power plants to sell energy to you its pretty obvious what's up. The reasonable assumption is economic spies sabotage your government. And if you look who is nowadays in government its to increasing degrees idiots with zero value, they couldn't hold any job on merit so their sole selling point is being obedient to bribery marketing economic suicide to the common people.

>>91195 it still remains to be seen whether there are infinite resources on this earth. even if it was finite (I don't think it is), we'll never know what that limit is until we hit it. the ruthless expansion of industry is inevitable anyway, you can't stop history itself with "ruthless criticism". it's delusional

>>91318 >it still remains to be seen whether there are infinite resources on this earth. even if it was finite (I don't think it is) I'm curious what you mean by this. It seems obvious to me that a ball in space is only made of so much stuff. Are you talking about renewables/biological resources? Or about human ingenuity in finding new material to meet our needs. >The ruthless expansion of industry is inevitable Why? and for how long?

>>91197 >>91235 The oldest thread as we speak on /hum/ is >>79673 A /vent thread started by "Mentat" >/vent/ Mentat 2024-04-11 14:54:05 No.79673 Last post: >Six 2024-05-25 17:51:17 >>80914 It is not bump locked. Neither was the first Solarpunk thread, until it reached the 300 posts limit that is. The first Solarpunk thread, a good one, started with this post >Solarpunk Joe Hisaishi 2024-02-29 11:48:31 No.7819 Last post >Sipho Nkosi 2024-11-09 15:41:52 No.85416 In other words, the last post that bumped that thread for the last time was posted SIX MONTHS after the last post of the last thread on this board. Logic would want this first Solarpunk thread to still be there. Go to Meta and ask why it's been erased because that's what it looks like happened and there was no good non-political reason to destroy it. Unless someone put it on archive.is or any similar website it's lost forever because I don't think lainchan has any archive of its own. It was the only thread that also directly attacked the Climate Change narrative with substantiated documents and links. Notice that the second thread's OP was attacked by a knee jerking jannie many months later, totally out of the blue.

Try https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://lainchan.org/hum/res/78190.html

And just before we lose the second one. archive.is/4IoC4

>>91331 mainly fossil fuels but this literally applies to literally anything. fertilized soil, fresh water. I'm not saying it's literally infinite, but the people panicking saying we can "run out" at any second are off the mark by millions of years in my opinion. not saying they're literally infinite, but from our point of view they will probably virtually be infinite for a very long, virtually infinite period of time. >Why? and for how long? forever, if you ask me. it will always be re-occurring because of a combination of avarice and competition. any time a people finds a way to produce resources faster and cheaper than their neighbors, their neighbors have to adopt the new automating technology otherwise they will be run out of business and jobless. it's the only way for countries to remain politically stable. if you look at international trade and history you'll see this all the time. trying to remain stagnant as a country without developing new factories, agriculture techniques, etc. will cause political turmoil that will force your higher-tech neighbors to annex you anyway.

>>91335 those "archive" links don't work; is there any way someone saved and recorded the first thread? did we literally just lose it?

is there a reason why the ecofasc microplastics schizos seemingly don't give a soykaf about aldehydes or know how they work? is it just because there's actual chemistry and science involved, are they allergic to scientific consensus because it doesn't let them play the victimized contrarian >>91358 lets calm down girls, its archived in the usual place, pic related. >>91236 its an overview of the aesthetic tendency of solarpunk as it mainly originated on social media and has very few actual writing of it, talks about the relevance of ursula le guin and then talks about utopianism. I didn't watch it because I don't have 40 minutes away from my capitalism mandated participatino in the real economy, but seems not far off from my issues with the genre. ive written works that cld be called "solarpunk" before but I don't like using that name because i find the punk suffix to be uninspired and slightly insufferable, i have also been reluctant to participate in these threads because i don't think the utopianism of solarpunk is especially thought out or really transgresses the reality of neoliberalism. Or conservationism, for that matter, nor the aspect of social ecology that sort of doesn't question the fundamental relation of humanity to nature that it feels social ecology attempts to justify - there is an old, naturalistic philosophy that humans are the keepers of the earth, which does not contradict the premise the earth is a machine with inputs and outputs and that it is our manifest destiny to control nature. i would argue that none of us even know what the earth is, to say nothing of the similar concepts like "world" and "planet". this is unfortunate, because we are now largely out of the fuarrrk around phase of ecohistory. there was no anthropocene, merely the difference between industrialization and ecological catastrophe not merely in the premise of global warming but also in mass-extinction-driven food chain collapse, intergenerational global war and water depletion, local poisoning, all that which an only slightly more histrionic ideologue might call ecological genocide. so solarpunk, to my understanding tries very hard to make a statement but simultaneously attempts to present itself as a solution to all of our problems and coalition apolitically wherever it can reach. the formation of localistic communes practicing new forms of agriculture that take care of the land and are sourced through sustainable, relatively small supply chains is not something i or ~solarpunk~ are against but the devil is in details as you see these exact debates - nuclear power versus solar farms, for instance, take on the character of a debate between science fiction and technical reality. there's a whole other thing worth stating about city planning, and utopianism - cities of the future - as a design trend originating in elite conversations dating back hundreds of years, that strikes me as wildly authoritarian on the part of the designers, ironically, it is these exact sentiments that brought us the world in which we now live and that i see solarpunk lacking contradiction in. now i must return to work.

I don't know how relevant this is, but Apple recently released a new iphone software update that features "Liquid Glass" as the new UI design style. I am having this feeling that the solar punk / frutiger aero design is going to make a big comeback in the late 2020s. Which would be nice, it is a very optimistic futuristic aesthetic.

I tried listening to this mess of a podcast thinking I'd hear something new but it's just a repeat of all the talking points you can easily find online. It's just as trite as it's superficial. It's 2025 already and they haven't moved one damn inch. They keep interrupting each other, they can't stay on course so topics keep being shuffled around, I can barely follow wherever they're going. And the main host's typical calisoy user strangled voice is insufferable. https://www.neondystopia.com/?p=100043256 https://media.rss.com/l0wl1f3podcast/2025_05_15_12_16_17_6dfea4cc-fc90-4645-b385-fc7ba19aaca3.mp3 If you want to listen to this crap be my guest and come back to us if you found anything of value.

"Fossil fuels" is marketing BS from big corpos. Fuels are created and refined through a chemical process using plants as primary ingredients. It's not "it takes a gorillian years for bacteria to break down biomass into fuel" it's big money scammers converting biomass into fuel through applied chemistry.

>>91405 No it isn't. It is just a colloquial term that existed since the mid 1700s and stuck. Also no they don't "make it from plants" unless it is biofuel they refine crude oil in most cases which is comprised of long dead animals and plants. Stop pretending you know something you don't just so you can pretend you are a special chosen one with insider knowledge. It just makes you look stupid.

>>91429 Fossil fuels is a heavily pushed marketing terminology, they are materials humans refine from plants NOT materials magically refined by time. Anyone can choose themselves over the world by merely choosing to listen to truth and reason over BS murderous lying corporations & nepo babies.

>>91429 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm

>>91439 Crude oil is not a plant. You're not even making a point that makes any sense. Who cares what it's called. >>91442 Ive never met or heard anyone who thought it even came from literal fossils just decayed matter under certain conditions and then processing it.

>>91445 Germany manufactured their own synthetic fuels in the 1930s and 40s. It has always been possible it's just expensive and pointless if you are not at war against the entire world and can just buy naturally occurring oil from countries who simply suck it out of the ground. >>91429 >Stop pretending you know something you don't just so you can pretend you are a special chosen one with insider knowledge It's not super arcane knowledge but it is something certain interest groups don't want you to know because they are trying to convince everybody that we will run out of oil by the 1970s^W 1980s^W 1990s^W whatever their current lie is now.

>>91369 >lets calm down girls, its archived in the usual place That must have changed within the last three days. Are you sure they didn't simply move it? my access-line says it is blocked. >>91439 They've been extracting this oil for ages. It's called crude oil, it's not plants that are cultivated and then transformed. Maybe you're thinking of something else.

>>91494 now. wtf happened to our thread and who blocked it?

>>91308 Sure, I could talk quite a bit about what a wonderful material wood is. Especially if we get into the topic of high pressure compression where the fibers and natural resins are compressed into double or quadruple its density. Imo a valuable material of the future from which it would be feasible to construct even some pluming infrastructure that could last a while, similar to the tar pipes which also are a clever composite. But that anon was clearly talking about using actual hollowed wood logs. Or "like barrels", posting an example image as well. And that's the kind of nonsense that makes me seriously question if the proponents of "solarpunk" even grasp the difference between playing some make belief or real life politics, sociology and technology? It would at least explain why "green policies" have been consistently the dumbest thing a supposedly smart person could openly stand for. And you can tell by the quality of the ideas where what's discussed are air blips, solar power in northern Europe, typing people to a "15 minute" radius so they don't use their evil cars, total economic centralization without even really the benefits, random scifi images with greenery (and floating Ghibli islands??)... and now I can add wooden friggn pipes to the list. It's not even stuff like nuclear fusion being around the corner or modular, much safer nuclear plants, something the Soviets even had operational. Or hydrogen or helium 3.. Hell, not even tidal is mentioned by these absolute clowns! Instead greens seem like they've got an internal competition going on who can come up with the most retarded proposals. Meanwhile regular people who are told to suck it up for mother nature get disgruntled by the entire topic whatsoever while looking at their unnecessarily absurd electricity bills, defeating the cause. And being surrounded by these people while seeing the results without tinted glasses just made me sick and tired of humoring them while they push their modern version of Lysenkoism. Like why is the damn Fernsehturn in OP's pic burning green smoke? Loosing WW2 really messed us krauts up.. >>91193 Ah yes, clean coal! It's what Germany runs on! I hope we will get steam trains too! >>91318 It's still safe to assume that resources are indeed limited and that countries will eventually go to war against each other to secure the scraps (if they haven't already). Since even if we could manifest matter with out mere minds, which is not quite how I think the universe works, the problem is that currently we cant and there's a chance we never will. Or in more general terms, it's the extraction and availability that's the bottle neck. If you don't know how to get or process something, you might as well not have it. But if you're talking about us just being able to print free money then I suggest you think a little bit more about it.. Oh, I saw the reply.. But I'll keep it since I know there's gonna be people whom this is relevant to. >>91405 >>91429 It's not "just plants" since otherwise bio diesel wouldn't be this expensive debacle but neither is crude oil some magical resource that needs to ferment like the world's fanciest wine. We could get oil and gasoline from all the plastic waste that's around as well as bio matter from freshly grown crops. But like the other anon said, it's cheaper to just pump it out of the ground if it's already there. >>91518 Gotta save some storage space on one of the slowest image boards. Anyway, pic related is who calls you an uneducated science denier. Fun crowd of people to do drugs with but ultimately operate on emotions first.

>>91307 >I mean come on now! You can't tell me that you consider yourself so smart that everyone should just adopt your amazing ideas while clearly not knowing what happens to wood that's buried in wet soil! In late medieval times they would use a kind of tar on the wood to protect it. But it wasn't used for piping. Water delivered with such piping would obviously have the taste of tar. Half of the sources of tar rely on fossil resources. Another one would require cutting down wood. >What about the greater population? If you dig for a while you will find that solarpunk channels ideas of apocalypse. Two chronological concepts seem to be in opposition within the genre: on one side, a revolution without destruction, on the other, a revival out of a great catastrophe. Cue Nausicaa, but that's not the only inspiration. I may say inspiration with no desire to scratch further down because these proponents of solarpunk have deluded themselves into thinking that Miyazaki's works are proto-solarpunk. How can they know? They can't even define solarpunk and the degree of political comprehension involved in it is laughably minimal from the people sucked into it through mere visual bait, while some superior force seems far more aware that it is cynically pulling off with this, perhaps patiently waiting how far it can go before it takes the reins. This really is some insane cult for teenadults and manbabies. >So we need to come up with how to mass produce nano tube lanyards first then? Since those blips wont stay stationary on their own while pulled by stratospheric winds. In addition to some other tech to transmit the power without frying the cord and otherwise keep those things from coming lose or posing a danger to others. A tethered blimp will immobilize itself once it will reach the maximal cable length, itself being rolled and pulled from the ground. The isolation of the first dozen of cable would be relatively easy to achieve while it's good to remember that it's not a necessity as our electric cables are already exposed. The high risk is the invisibility of the cable for flyers, the blimp falling, the cable snapping, and the overall radius required for the blimp from the tethering point, although you can see that with specific wing foils, it's possible to pull a blimp upwards faster than a wind is going to drag it horizontally, far away from its landing zone. The technology doesn't look too stupid to be honest and seems to have been terminated too soon. >The movie Snow Piercer comes to mind, does it count? It's a communistic critique stretched along the length of a fictional train. Steal is magically invulnerable in this movie as the extreme cold doesn't break the rails and said rails never get changed, nor does the train need any repair. It's absolutely absurd in so many ways. However, one funny aspect of this movie is how the proles living in the ass end of the train were eating the bugz under the form of brown gelatinous bars and were horrified to discover that it was what they had been fed all these years. It's also completely stupid because as a closed system it simply cannot afford losing energy and it's unclear how this train is powered, but it above all cannot afford losing biomass. So all the little kids used to work in the locomotive must be recycled too. >"solarpunk philosophers", if you can even call it that, probably think people opposing them are just ignorant plebians hooked on big oil propaganda Since solarpunk is a forced concept that is wholly supported by whimsical leftists, that is clearly going to be the critique: oil addicts will lie to the world and to themselves. You can't argue with them, rationality never entered the equation. Facts are absent. They definitely argue for a massive reduction of movement and consumption of energy, but they don't explain how a reduction of power will not lead to a reduction of the production of the advanced materials needed for their hybrid environments. It's like they believe concrete walls will grow naturally alongside the plants. >>91316 >when your government is stopping its power plants while the neighboring government is building power plants to sell energy to you its pretty obvious what's up. For those who don't understand, the topic is likely about the production of electricity in Germany and France. The latter seems to be giving the impression it's investing in the construction of power plants but it's nothing like it. They had an advanced nuclear industry, perhaps first in the world, and they kept sabotaging it over two decades. Meanwhile Germany is obsessed about following the greenest of directives while destroying entire forest to dig some coal, which we all know won't release any carbon dioxide upon exploitation. Then, when the energy supply is short, electricity is bought from the French neighbor. This is totally irrational and it's up to you to decide if these politicians are totally mad or if they're paid to do it on purpose. I will never agree with the idea that they are idiots. They are not.

>>91525 >Gotta save some storage space on one of the slowest image boards. Yeah, that must be it. /s I also have no idea where the archive is supposed to be. I wasn't even aware that they bothered having one or that any alt-lain ever bothered collecting one. Unless the arisu staff still maintained one as branch of this very website? Hard to believe, especially after the silly drama that happened so many years ago.

> blip carrying any payload > sail barges for logistics > farm apartments > what looks like 3 10-20KW turbines is probably supposed to power everything > everything is yuppie housing but with shrubbery I see why you picked this pic. These people live in a fantasy while thinking they're doing real politikTM and bad decisions are pushed of an entire nation that ends up having to be even less ecologically sound just to compensate. And apt explanation of the Germany-France energy relation, I forget that many people, even many germans are not aware of how ridiculous this is. I probably should also explain the recent Spain situation as well. Whose new administration tried to one up Germany and speed decommission their nuclear plants ended up in a situation where their national grid failed to maintain base load and had to be emergency decoupled from the rest of Europe and thank god and whoever operated the relays that day since it contained the resulting blackout to Spain and I believe Catalonia and Portugal as well. And I don't understand this fully but an explanation that I heard described them to perform a hot fix that needed to be very well timed that if they were just 5 minutes late it could've kept the entire country and neighbors depending on them to end up weeks, maybe months without power. And I hope people understand what kind of emergency situation that would be. The absolute madlad engineers who pulled this off basically saved Spain from falling back into the dark ages and utter anarchy. But the government there obviously still blamed the electricity companies rather than their insane policies. >it's up to you to decide if these politicians are totally mad or if they're paid to do it on purpose. Which brings me to this point of yours and I have wondered about this for a good while by now. While yes, these people are really not simply bumbling idiots and drooling morons (with some exceptions) but they aren't geniuses either. Most are your slightly above medium intelligence busybody types who enjoyed a very good private and higher education. Thus these people have personally never experienced anything outside of abstract ivory tower ideas, bureaucratic desk jobs and a sheltered elevated lifestyle. While not dumb people per se, they've also never grew beyond their university years and thus are often stuck as these 50 year old college kids. Many of whom probably never paid any taxes whatsoever and otherwise not having to face the consequences of their decisions. Personal financial gain is of course also part of it if you look at someone like the Von Derlayens so it's clearly a multi faceted thing. But aside of corruption and theft, I think people overlook this aspect of the ruling/managerial class' mindset. One where even with a decent intellect a person is likely to get stuck with a skewed world view and getting stunted in a way. But for the usual midwits among them you can imagine how low the probability for self reflection is or stopping to ask "does this actually make sense"? But it's not just money but also being in "the clique" as well. Most people are dependent on their social circles. You can imagine what sort of mean girls table a mostly effeminate rulership would be and how the most asinine of ideas manage to proliferate. > eating the bugz under the form of brown gelatinous bars Ah so that's what that was. I didn't feel like I've understood that scene because considering the circumstances this doesn't seem as shocking. My thought was more like that what he saw was either poop or soylent. But all that aside, I'm not against solar or wind. I got some panels myself. I mentioned some other tech that greens won't touch in my previous post. My issue is that if we talk fantasy then that's gotta be clear since I don't think it is with this topic. Forced aesthetics or not, solarpunk seemingly blends the line between theater kid scifi and green party policies around the West. And if you implement bad ideas on mass scale then all you do is cause mass suffering. I'm not sure if this thread should be hijacked or warrants a new eco futurism general or whatever if people want to talk about actually good ways to save the planet, promote freedom and make it worthwhile for people to care about the future. But so far to me it's clear that this green/solarpunk sentiment is doing the exact opposite.

>>91654 anon again. Sorry, meant to reply to >>91576 But might as well.. Eco Futurism hours, boys! Number one should be heavy investment into nuclear. China built like 10 or 20 reactors in the past decades. And while it takes an insane amount of time to plan and build one and the damage by our current retard politicians has already been done (thanks Merkel!) Europe still could catch up if the political will was there. Maybe go modular and maybe those could all be placed right at the Rhine and Ebro next to France, but as long as we don't have fusion energy, that's the best we have at harnessing the power of the atom. City planing is a big topic. But instead of putting retarded "bicycle highways" everywhere and making it impossible to own a car, I'm more thinking along the lines of underground motorways and parking under new multi story buildings. This would solve congestion and "car centered designs" with "artery" underground highways connecting the metropole centers, improve logistics, mobility and fuel and energy consumption while needing only mild traffic to be above ground. This could then be combined with new mega city complexes that are based on a modular design so housing would not only be much more plenty and thus more affordable and efficient but the available space could easily be refitted to either apartments, business, shop or office spaces depending on the current needs. This would boost economic activity, technological progress and proper "walkable cities" instead of this open air prison nonsense that those neo feudalists want. Of course with consideration of noise and hazardous pollution, high density human habitats need to be mixed use unlike the autistically separated approach that the Soviets or someone like Le Corbussier envisioned. However the pragmatic aspects of their ideas shouldn't be dismissed either if we want to make large population centers not be an absolute hell. Lastly governance and philosophy needs to be seriously and honestly tackled if we wish to make it through this century. Manufacturing and leadership while needing to scale up, should also be more localized. But also do we need to reign in the narcissism and control freaks and figure out a good general mindset and appreciation of reality in order to go forward. There's currently so many difficult and urgent questions that haven't entered public discourse yet..

>>91658 I've explained in a past thread already and dont feel like being a broken record but nuclear wont ever be viable as a sole or even primary energy source globally. The time, money and natural resources that goes into the plants is massive. Then after a few decades they have to be dismantled and new ones have to be made in an entirely different location. It just cant be done. This is before even getting into the issue of the safety of miners and nuclear plant workers and environmental impact of radioactive waste storage not being reliable. Think about it why do all the big corporations and governments support it? It doesn't change the status quo in geopolitics and globalist economics. As much as I'd like to believe the hype it has so many flaws. Nuclear batteries are cool though and might actually be more useful on a wide scale but they are just so low powered their uses are very limited. Also think about how countries will control others. Take for example Israel cutting power to Gaza now imagine this on a much larger scale. There is great political power to be had in the greater centralization of the power grid. We should strive for decentralized power not centralized power to give more freedom to individuals and small collectives instead of corporate and state actors.

>and when fusion power Not to burst your bubble lainon but >>85854 >>87666 It's all hype and nothing else. Call that a subsides based scheme if you will because that's how it's been thus far. No other research on energy has been so dry on delivering and moving forward. They spend billions when they can't even achieve anything with mere setups that would cost only millions. Assuming the current solar model is correct (big natural fusion furnace held in place by gravity alone).

>>91659 >a few decades they have to be dismantled and new ones have to be made in an entirely different location. What brainrot is this? Eastern countries have reactors running build during soviet times.

I remembered that I actually have something to contribute for once. These crazy half-underground houses called "Earthships" have become an obsession of mine, they're made of recycled materials and dirt, off-grid for both power, water, and sewerage, and are cooled by using the greenhouse in front to suck cold air through the water tanks behind. Good luck building one, though, you won't get council approval, and I think the inventor was stripped of his architect's license for seventeen years.

>>91662 they have yt videos of building them where no council exists. US has apparently still some no mans land where nobody will mess with you at the donwside of also having no infrastructure you can rely on. That aside i've seen a german do a big brain trickery by registering a glass house and building his actual building inside it. Increased cost of course but completely bypassed any legal restrictions and allowed him to build within a regular city with attachment to the grid for eletricity / internet.

>>91661 >a few decades they have to be dismantled and new ones have to be made in an entirely different location. Because there is no problem with solar panels that last 20 years and then need to be thrown away and can't even be recycled. >What brainrot is this? You know somebody is dumb when they fall for anti-nuclear propaganda created by inbred 80iq oil sheikhs who are just trying to cling on to their energy monopoly.

>>91654 That picture's colored mosaic looks quite dysgenic. What program or project is it related to? >dumb politicians You can't be too dumb to go so far up the ladder, and the decisions taken that are ruinous for countries would already be understood to be problematic by enough civilians. Sabotaging an economy and industries is good for one thing, turning them into scraps cheaper for acquisition by gigagroups so that all types of resources would be in their hands, all independent business and all possibility of freedom gone. >solar and wind I wouldn't have issues with them if their entire commercial legitimacy didn't rest on lies and entire lakes worth of damaged components. They have their uses but they're weak against nuclear fission. >>91658 >City planing In Europe the cities are already maximizing the estate available upon the bedrock and their street plan is rather chaotic contrary to most of the large American cities. New cities would perhaps be easier to work on to implement an underground car network. This would require perhaps too much work with the clear risk of completely ruining the foundations of the existing buildings. There is nothing that can be done about them and we already see how minor changes in ground elevations can wreck havoc on current houses and small buildings. The safest way to introduce car arteries would be through the removal of long lines of buildings and then covering these arteries with all sorts of roofs, themselves topped with new and smaller buildings, hubs for different transportation systems and forested patches. The main arteries do not solve all issues though. Many small shops are dependent on small and fluid transportation to be restocked. Some types of business vehicles need to be allowed. What would be the solarpunk take on this? Blimps would be a nightmare to drive through a city, even if they were all tethered to cables and sliding up and down them along main streets. No, what a mess. Japanese-like very small trucks or three wheeled electrical scooters would be a better option, on the condition that the electric components can be recycled and reused in other vehicles and not just stored in junkyards. Some people would suggest using horses again. This can work to some extent, especially if they're equipped with feces collecting bags to avoid soiling the pavements. >Of course with consideration of noise and hazardous pollution, high density human habitats need to be mixed use unlike the autistically separated approach that the Soviets or someone like Le Corbussier envisioned. However the pragmatic aspects of their ideas shouldn't be dismissed either if we want to make large population centers not be an absolute hell. But is there a need for packing people so closely to each other? If we are going to build towers, shouldn't each tower be surrounded by smaller buildings with all of them interconnected and relating to each others in terms of functionality? Then, shouldn't a tower with its smaller buildings not be conceived as a small city of its own, with a lot of greenery between each one of these small cities? If the towers are self-sufficient and concentrate many activities, why would we ever need again concentrated and dense urban areas? >>91659 The better solution is just not to depend on energy that much and perhaps make use of more paper than electronics. The centralization of society necessitates a constant transfer of assets into the electronic sphere. Fuel engines were a way towards freedom but they're progressively derezzed because muh pollution despite schizophrenic policies to lace fossil oil fuelds with plant derived fuels, where a loss of energy density comes with an increase in energy autarky. The political decisions are as absurd as they are damaging to entire economies.

>>91661 >Eastern countries have reactors running build during soviet times. But Slavs are all radioactive now. It's a well known fact checked fact.

>>91667 >The political decisions are as absurd as they are damaging to entire economies. It's time to realize that's the point. This is sabotage not incompetence.

>>91667 >What program or project is it related to? I kid you not it was part the official election posters of the Green Party in Berlin, Germany. And were put up in public and train stations. Sadly I couldn't find a better picture but this one should already illustrate the mindset of this political cohort. Note also that it says "Xhain" as opposed to the now greatly gentrified and yuppified district of Friedrichshein since I suppose Frederick the Great was a fuarrrking white male and probably a nazi as well.. >dumb politicians Let me rephrase. While yes, the ruling elite (or rather elitists) are certainly not dumb people per se (with exceptions of course) but what I meant to say is that they also aren't these superior super geniuses either which they probably think of them selves that they are. They're probably just these 110-130IQ regulars (a range you will find on many campuses) but with a great education and often this high achiever mindset (some of them are also just high functioning psychopaths) but since they've managed to completely shield and detach themselves from the realities of regular life that they have little to no ability to relate nor even really care. Their circles also require a lot of bullshitting and just making the next trick work so there's likely not as much forward thought as conspiratards like to imagine. Instead much of it is just winged, albeit with great cunning and access to quality intel. Still makes them greatly susceptible to the regular establishment midwittery. And granted, it's what they want the population at large to believe but I think some of them swallowed their own medicine and believe in it themselves. You are right on the scamming part though since a lot of it is. What's abundantly clear however is that they most certainly hate the proles and peasantry aka the native population of the countries they house of carded themselves on the thrones to. And deem them inferior and expendable to their little chess games. They are not these omnipotent gods however, even if many seem to have a god complex. I hope this better conveys my general impression of these people. Only people that truly give me an uneasy feeling are these old Rothschild types. Like have you seen this guy's cranium? It makes places like /x/ convinced that we're ruled by actual cone heads. >solar and wind >I wouldn't have issues with them Me neither. It's great for off grid stuff, especially if perovskites deliver. And there's lightweight cars that could basically drive indefinite (short of maintenance) as long as you stay in the sunny regions of earth. >City planing >New cities would perhaps be easier to work on to implement an underground car network Most likely. But I'd say it appears much more feasible to figure out better tech for that than trying to break the laws of physics to get a blip to carry a shipping container. Levitation tech just seems much more distant than an automated surveying and robotized excavation system. Something that multiple companies are working on right now already. One is a british company testing excavation drone swarms that create small tunnels (as opposed to one very large one) which then can be used to make a reinforced wall before anything is even dug out. And one of their competitors is the "Boring Company". >The main arteries do not solve all issues though. They would solve a great amount of traffic though. Problem is if you look at US cities, you have people needing to go from one part of the town to the other and have to use the same parts of road as the people who just want to go to the local Walmart as well as people who want to go from and to another end of town. So if there's a separate network to go from one end of the town to another then the local drivers could go at the fraction of the speed, making traffic safer while still getting to the store faster due to not having to sit in a traffic jam. City highways already prove that concept but they cut through a city and aren't as efficient imo. >But is there a need for packing people so closely to each other? Look at places like Manhattan and NYC. And don't even start me on SEA metropoles. People are already living like sardines in a can, having to pay three quarters of their pay check just to rent a broom closet with plumbing. Meanwhile those city scrapers are mostly empty but very difficult and expensive to retrofit them for residential use. Now what if you'd build the next mega city with a modular concept in mind in which you're basically have a lattice with exterior walls where walls and even floors can be moved and replaced? Now you could optimize for the empty space, renting or selling sections of that "lattice". And yes, I don't like the towers and I think the parisians really dodged a bullet here. Le Corbusier's plans for them would've been atrocious and instead of towers it would most likely be a structure of connected towers and strips to maximize rooms with windows but also allow travel within it so to not have to go all the way down an up again. Also "thematically sorting" the towers and buildings is the issue that communist and Corbusier's designs had. Just look at planned cities like Brazillia or heavily regulated suburbs where there's often not even a corner store anywhere because well, that part isn't zoned for this.. Meanwhile places with stores on the first floors of residential buildings seem much more lively, convenient, energy efficient in many regards and even safer. While offices really do not need much that is special so you could just retrofit many upper floors for their use. Regular modern sound dampening between the floors should suffice. And I've been to many medical practitioners that basically operate from what looks like an old style apartment building. You can surely tell it's an idea I've toyed with a bit already.. What I liked about Corbusier's ideas however was his proposal to have underground car access to buildings which would be brilliant for parking, logistics, mail or parcel delivery or waste disposal. Currently a typical European street is quite packed in the late morning to early afternoon with parked cars, commuting drivers, multiple delivery vans, trucks and now extra bike lanes and other things the gov puts up to bully car owners. >perhaps make use of more paper than electronics Paper needs electricity to be made. >What would be the solarpunk take on this? From having both read through the solarpunk as well as the car hate threads I worry there's none. It's all bullshit with no practical solutions and really only boils down to a special kind of NIMBYism but with fancier concept art. >>91659 Wait, are you the clown who called people "nuclear fetishists"? I don't think you have to rebuild the reactor every time. I could be wrong of course but that sounds like bullshit. Besides there's quite a variety of modern design around like thorium reactors and multiple stages burning. And proper shielding and not being run by communists or anyone non white/asian/jewish then the cosmic radiation while standing outside is probably worse. But it's the thing to power entire first world and industrial cities with. Spain recently showed why. Might wear a geiger counter though. >>91660 I just want to have the power of the sun in the palm of my hand. I can believe it's very difficult tech to get right but the potential yields would make solar a joke unless you wanted to operate your box cooler deep in the sticks. But yes, since we don't have it yet, best thing is nucular. >>91662 Cool concept. Not applicable to 8-9bil people but cool. And fuarrrk those megalomaniacs who don't allow this or the one guy who built an irl hobbit cave. >>91670 Word is "degrowth".

>>91671 >Now you could optimize for the empty space, renting or selling sections of that "lattice". this is so much more complex to build. Even if you don't need to separately weather seal basically all the boxes as well as the lattice, every time you swap a box you'll have to fix the plumbing/electrical/atmospheric connections, not to mention the heavy elevators or permanent cranes or whatever means to mechanically move them in and out. Is there a door on every level to the outside or is 1/5 of the footprint of every floor dedicated to the elevator (and then you have rails or something to slide the boxes out, on each floor)? Do you move the modules on the roads between buildings on giant specialized trucks? How does this actually work ? Not saying it couldn't be done but in both cases you wind up leaving volume empty, but in this modular system you require a lot more support infrastructure for what seems to me to be dubious benefit.

>>91672 Yes, this can't just be a scaled up version of Lego. You would have to expend construction labor in order to modify the floor plan within the designated perimeters while the rest would be fixed main shafts for the floor plumbing, main elevators and common corridors. If an office needs their own elevator or store their escalator, this might be fitted within their consecutive array of unit blocks. But contrary to those massive open office space floor plans, these were never designed to be retrofitted to anything but that but the NYC gov still tried to retrofit some of them into residential units, obviously at a great cost. The idea is that you build this sort of thing with a very long time frame in mind of at least a century or two during which you don't need to rebuild the entire thing but only move around standardized parts. That's been my idea so far at least. There's of course the design challenge to segment access levels (public, people with purpose, residents of a floor, workers of an office or shop..), lay out the fixed elements in a cost efficient but also flexible way. The whole structure would also needed to be build much taller, say 4-5 meter ceilings so it can serve these different purposes when needed. But this should be mostly a limit of material constraints since those buildings can be placed further apart and cut through parks, small traffic roads and other small installations that fit between them if the logistics have access through a road network beneath them. For residential this would mean layouts that resemble a small two story house but inside a large building or two layers of tiny pod apartments for low cost units. Due to noise and access level, shops and sport halls (if the lattice structure allows for it) would probably have to be on the floor levels where also the common corridors could be. Another thing to consider would be to not have it be a fire trap which would require floors to have exits to at least two sides. It's certainly a challenge but I think it could be done if there's a need for a flexible long term solution that saves on having to build and demolition buildings over and over or wanting to future proof yourself to not run into the issues that NYC and some other places did. There's still going to be a need for dedicated buildings of course but if a structure like that could be build that stretches out to say be able to hold a million residential units or half a million and the rest is offices, co-ops, stores and what have you, it could cover a great amount of a city's mixed use needs at a much more compact foot print. But of course this still falls into the category of mega projects. And there's of course a bunch of other important stuff to consider, like emergency access and large item transport, communal space of residential sections, details on access level layouting or routing, and and and but it's an interesting concept imo to make ant life less ant like.

>>91494 >That must have changed within the last three days. Are you sure they didn't simply move it? my access-line says it is blocked. the archive in question is blocked in your country. I'll download it and send it to you. >>91525 the green movement has contained controlled opposition for decades, ever since it incorporated the anti nuclear lobby at the latest. however I don't think it should be treated with that much disdain, not that i disagree with you. are there green anarchists who know what's up and have sensible, organized projects, that don't get misty eyed over progressive, typically social democratic planning? certainly but you have to realize that much of the green movement are teenagers or college students who are just getting into political organizing on a single-issue basis, like how we were about EFF and the digital sovereignty movement. I'd say that they're the hippy version of elon musk type of technocrat but actually elon musk is that exact type of technocrat, lol now if I may nitpick, while i think you're right on the nuclear thing and am myself excited over China's new thorium plants don't plants involve some degree of centralization over e.g. solar? I think I prefer nuclear because I've heard solar is less efficient with greater resource debt, though I think my personal favorite alternative energy source is geothermal. >pic related is who calls you an uneducated science denier they look happy. >>91654 >While yes, these people are really not simply bumbling idiots and drooling morons (with some exceptions) but they aren't geniuses either. the point is, that they're not engineers. this is an interesting question i think because civic engineers and designers tend to know a lot more about this subject but don't necessarily know how to represent it for the masses. but nowadays it seems like we have the worst of both worlds: undemocratic leadership which ignores sensible planning in favor of their nepo baby's utopia drawings. I like to imagine that democracy and practical urban design go hand in hand - "the streets make their own use of things". >>91658 >put roads underground the benefit of roads over e.g. metro is that anything car related is much more modular: it's easier to tear down a block to put a highway in than dig underneath people's houses and worry about structural integrity, you will ultimately have to redevelop the block either way and one solution involves far less digging. I'm not saying that a preplanned underground road system could work at first, but i don't see it staying underground as time goes on. you should read the metabolist manifesto, if you haven't already. there's lots of interesting material in the citations on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism_(architecture)

>>91671 >>91661 This is from a pro nuclear group saying this even > Most nuclear power plants have operating life- times of between 20 and 40 years. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf Newer ones are supposed to be up to 40 to 60 years though. I repeat "a few decades" in either case. >>91666 Incremental solar panel replacement is completely different in cost, resources, and time compared to building entire nuclear power plants. Also I never said just solar or no nuclear whatsoever. The part on solar panels being non recyclable you just made up entirely. Saudi Arabia plans 50% of their power to be renewable energy sources by 2030. https://icg.co/saudi-arabia-clean-tech-investments/ >>91671 > Wait, are you the clown who called people "nuclear fetishists"? No but I can see why someone would say that. A lot of people who hype nuclear as the end all be all have extremely unrealistic takes thinking it is all that is needed and lack an understand of the geopolitics behind it. There is not enough rare earth minerals on the planet to build only nuclear power plants. > I don't think you have to rebuild the reactor every time. I could be wrong of course but that sounds like bullshit. Source: your feels. It has to do with structural integrity loss caused by the radiation as one factor among the usual corrosion and other issues. The process of decommissioning and dismantling is expensive just as creating the plants are also very expensive and resource intensive. Average build time is 10 years, a thorium reactor with same output would likely take longer. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ Time to decommission takes many years too even from the words of that pro nuclear group i previously linked https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/nuclear-decommissioning-addressing-the-past-and-ensuring-the-future > Besides there's quite a variety of modern design around like thorium reactors and multiple stages burning. It would be nice but thorium reactors dont directly use thorium which is not fissile. It requires fissile material like uranium to start the process to convert thorium into > And proper shielding and not being run by communists or anyone non white/asian/jewish then the cosmic radiation while standing outside is probably worse. But it's the thing to power entire first world and industrial cities with. Spain recently showed why. The shielding requires limited resources. The rest doesn't have to do with anything but discrediting yourself as being incapable of restoring to anything but zealous rhetoric.

>>91674 >however I don't think it should be treated with that much disdain, Perhaps but I also got the feeling that maybe I don't hate the greens enough. Lobbies or not, the types of people who find themselves there are always the same do-gooder to even anti-human types. Often from a more pampered strata of society and not having crossed the thought that regular people will burn anything in the winter to stay warm. While I see the well meaning, I also see how it ends up causing more damage. As a small example of what I mean is how red squirrels are probably going to go extinct now around here. It's nice that students have interest in politics but looking at how unreasonable they become something tells me they aren't focusing their efforts under good guidance. >they look happy. Well, ignorance is bliss. And also drugs. >don't plants involve some degree of centralization over e.g. solar? Same as large solar and wind farms. >my personal favorite alternative energy source is geothermal. It's great in places like Iceland. >they're not engineers It's perhaps interesting to mention that there's many civic engineers in the Chinese government. The flip side of it is that now everything is seen as an engineering problem. Particularly focusing on construction than to design and improve existing processes. Like the wasteful way they irrigate their crops. I don't think the engineering way is always the best but that would involve having a broad range of expertise to be available during complex decisions. While our politicians are overwhelmingly lawyers, bureaucrats and other types of abstract theorists and pencil pushers. And with no real convictions of their own they get easily lulled in by what their industry contacts tell them would make them more money and ensure their political security or what simply would sound good. >anything car related is much more modular True, you will not be able to avoid trucks for instance needing to get to stores even if 90% of the way is covered by freight trains. But the problem is congestion if you route long and short distance traffic through the same roads. High traffic needs vertical levels and I presume that if we manage to figurue out better and cheaper excavation tech then this should be a no brainer to do. Even if right now there's yet too many problems with it. >read the metabolist manifesto While interesting, it's too much out there. Where their idea of modularity is more Lego like and fantastic while I was simply talking of something that's more reasonably achievable and has as it's goal to build reusable structured for changing demands and more efficient structuring of cities, real estate and traffic with a focus on availability of housing, personal mobility and economic activity. I don't see the need of gimmick buildings that either swim or allow pods to be attached on the outside. I also try to keep a distance from either marxist or fascist architecture since both like to go into autistic extremes. Autists in generall shouldn't be anywhere near city planning, let alone ideologically driven ones, even though they're naturally driven to these fields. Mixed use will get neglected otherwise even if that's what improves livability. Including even small time manufacturing within residential areas. Le Corbusier's towers for instance were meant exclusively for the high society, politicians, engineers, philosophers, musicians and artisans. Probably divided by thematic towers as well. But as someone who hated it having to find a bakery or small grocery store while on lunch break at some business area, I think that architects who like to think in distinct boxes like that tend to overlook how important it is for people to have many thematically different things within their proximity or how difficult it is to bus everyone from the dwelling district to the factory and back every day when running a complex economy. But I also must confess that what I am suggesting is not my aesthetic ideal. It was merely an attempt to solve high population density while not having to demolish and rebuild so much. My personal preference are those slum like european structures that can have the wildest floor plans and most unexpected assortment of usages within the same building complex. And I say complex since you could hardly call that a coherent building. I suppose they were getting common post war but now sadly have mostly vanished post gentrification and the introduction of globohomo architecture. >>91678 >Source: your feels. My intuition has been surprisingly reliable whenever I am met with someone who's overly convinced of their position while caricaturing those of others to be automatically suspicious of anything they're saying. >hype nuclear as the end all be all Other sources of energy have been suggested. Just because some people have identified nuclear as the currently best source of reliable energy to power modern cities doesn't mean they're particularly fanatic or enthusiastic about it. Especially after it became apparent that much of this "going 100% renewable" was underwhelming at best, most likely a massive green washing scam or at worst a plan for degrowth and an endangerment of our grid's stability (see Texas or Spain). Also lithium, silver etc. is scarce too. Technological advancement is key to make the best of what we have and for that we need cheap, reliable power. >Saudi Arabia plans 50% of their power to be renewable energy sources by 2030. Makes sense for them. Much more so than say England. >Average build time is 10 years Yes, which is why we probably should've started yesterday with new constructions, like the Chinese. And while the US had plants that had to be decommissioned before they even hit the 40 year mark, there's plants who have had their license extended to 80 recently. That's not just "a couple decades" but an average person's lifespan. >incapable of restoring to anything but zealous rhetoric Advocating that all we need is solar panels and wind while posting what looks like an ai generated image of a domestic level installation to save a bit on the electricity bill, that sounds more zealous and unrealistic to me. Like what is it that you're envisioning? Put solar fields and wind generators everywhere? That's what we did here, we're ran out of space even after destroying ancient forests and protected monuments. During 2022 we had our gov divided over whether to remain the three last plants operational throughout the winter or not in the face of cheap russian gas having been cut off. And now we're relying on coal energy and expensive american gas that's shipped overseas on diesel barges. Or are you thinking more of downsizing the energy demands and population? At which point I'd simply suggest to start with yourself.

>>91678 >Newer ones are supposed to be up to 40 to 60 years though. I repeat "a few decades" in either case. And how many decades do solar panels or wind farms last? Where is this implicit expectation coming from that power plants need to last more than 60 years to be worthwhile? You are talking about technology that is barely 60 years old in the first place. >Saudi Arabia plans 50% of their power to be renewable energy sources by 2030. What point are you trying to make other than a western client state is being forced to follow the same suicidal energy policy as their masters. >Average build time is 10 years These figures are heavily sandbagged by government regulations lobbied for by oil companies to make their only real competition as unattractive as possible.

>>91678 >This is from a pro nuclear group saying this even >Most nuclear power plants have operating life- times of between 20 and 40 years. This isn't a lifetime limit, its a historical statistic and the causes include countries like germany closing theirs after fearmongering the public by other energy vendors. As said before soviet reactors are running over 40 years. If you close one down its not cause you have to.

>>91307 >Oh goodie, another one of those threads where you idiots are seriously arguing over air ship and blip technology while Spain was minutes away from a total electric grid failure after having attempted to implement some of the measures that were discussed in the previous threads. >>91654 >I probably should also explain the recent Spain situation as well. Whose new administration tried to one up Germany and speed decommission their nuclear plants ended up in a situation where their national grid failed to maintain base load and had to be emergency decoupled from the rest of Europe and thank god and whoever operated the relays that day since it contained the resulting blackout to Spain and I believe Catalonia and Portugal as well. >And I don't understand this fully but an explanation that I heard described them to perform a hot fix that needed to be very well timed that if they were just 5 minutes late it could've kept the entire country and neighbors depending on them to end up weeks, maybe months without power. And I hope people understand what kind of emergency situation that would be. >The absolute madlad engineers who pulled this off basically saved Spain from falling back into the dark ages and utter anarchy. But the government there obviously still blamed the electricity companies rather than their insane policies. Spain and Portugal have been walking out of the European Electricity Market. Following this, there comes a stupendous happening in Spain: no more electricity, internet, phones, for half a day. A whole country! Convenient. How this was achieved? All systems now are conveniently put online and tied together. There exists a virus that has been used in some place in Ukraine, affecting something near three quarters of a million people by generating a power blackout, either in 2015 or 2016 and it took days to reboot the local infrastructure. The name of that tool (virus) could either be Black Energy (with a module called Disk Kill) or Industroyer (or Crash Override). It could be similar to Stuxnet (USA, Israel) that's been used against Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant.

The solar punk ideal doesn't seem terribly realistic to me. How is a population supposed to sustain itself on solar power without being dependent on a massive industrial base that produces all these photovoltaics? It requires not just the factories themselves, but mining operations, large scale freight transport, industrial agriculture to feed all the workers in all these industries, mass-education, recycling facilities, and some of orbital mirrors/ weather control/ mass power storage assuming solar-based industry. Now this begs the question, what do all the people living in the earthships on the idyllic sunny hillside actually do? If they aren't actually contributing to the solar economy in a meaningful way, they are doomed to be optimized out of existence. If solar power was generally the most efficient way to power a society, I'm fairly confident that it would lead to a society much like our own, only with people spending more time figuring out the best way to point photovoltaics at the sky, rather than digging flammable rocks and goo out of the ground.

>>91672 We can reduce a few of these issues if we conceive each flat as a modular plug-in pod. Nothing too complicated really. We need to consider: - water arrival - electricity arrival - data/internet - central air-ducting - used waters expulsion The transporation of the modules is something else and frankly I don't see the point of bothering making modules that can be removed. What's the gain?

>>91678 >The part on solar panels being non recyclable you just made up entirely. Still waiting on the recycling part...

>>91671 >Now what if you'd build the next mega city with a modular concept in mind in which you're basically have a lattice with exterior walls where walls and even floors can be moved and replaced? Now you could optimize for the empty space, renting or selling sections of that "lattice". >>91672 >>91689 I think the ultimate answer this question is that 20th century skyscrapers were built to answer a very specific question given a particular set of circumstances. Namely, skyscrapers were built to accommodate huge, centralized office complexes in areas where land was very expensive. Nowadays, with the more advanced communications technologies, such a building simply isn't economical. Most new skyscrapers today are not office but luxury housing. I think the answer to the skyscraper question is that in a maximally efficient society, buildings of such size & expense would almost never go up in the first place.

>>91686 >spain grid failure was le russian cyb3r attack "Green energy" is unreliable. The more "green energy" you add to your grid the more unreliable your grid will be.

>>91347 Scarcity doesn't mean that we're going to run out, it means that it costs something something to obtain. Labour is also scarce. Unless you have something like a von Neumann universal constructor, we have scarcity (even if raw materials are not scarce, which they also are since you labour and things that require labour to obtain them). Code is not scarce (it costs virtually nothing to reproduce a piece of code that has already been written), hence artificial methods like DRM are required to create some scarcity. Open source and general digital piracy is probably the only zero-scarcity model irl I can think of. Point being that zero-scarcity doesn't mean that "there's enough to go around." As long as human labour is involved, things are scarce.

>>91694 The sun will also run out at some point so "renewable energy" is just a matter of how far into the future do you want to draw the line.

>>91694 Hence I specified that reproducing code costs "virtually" nothing. For any meaningful order of approximation, the Sun will last forever and code requires no computing power to reproduce. It does require products of labour and other scarce resources however, to harvest this infinite energy. For solar energy (provided the Sun lasts forever) to by its own virtue be a finite resource in our estimation, a Dyson sphere would have to be cheap enough to cost virtually nothing — we should be capable of harvesting All of it while keeping it economically viable. Petroleum is something that we get cheaply get our hands all over. Is petroleum scarce by virtue of its own? Only the cartel really knows.

>>91697 Intended to reply to you >,<>

>>91692 When the grid is decentralized it reduces effects of failures on the grid and stops the grid from being overloaded as you would experience in a heavily centralized grid providing power for millions. >>91688 Different materials and methods of generating energy and increasing efficiency are being invented all the time.

>>91710 >Different materials and methods of generating energy and increasing efficiency are being invented all the time. I will accept that innovations may in the future make solar power more efficient than modern petroleum. But I draw the line at waving away all the realities of modern manufacturing. Producing even simple & cheap products en masse requires teams of engineers & mechanics, often using highly specialized equipment, and employing highly sophisticated processes. To reinvent industry as we know it is probably orders of magnitude more difficult than just getting solar panels and power grids to work a bit better.

There's two possibilities for free energy, or at least for the cost of manufacturing the machines. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or the Dymaxion Global Energy Grid.

I don't get how these threads are so popular, nothing against them but it's interesting how energy generation seems to be so interesting to most people? Why? I've not seen other threads explode this fast here before.

>>91716 I think it's not so much energy in itself but speculative futurism. Energy just seems to be a common one that comes up in this series of threads since there has been people politicizing it associating different forms of energy with their ideology. Personally I just see things in terms of as what is practical and good for the health of people and animals. There isnt really an easy answer since a lot of questions can arise

>>91715 Aren't these just schemes for heavier interconnection of networks to create a global grid? It is a globalist's wet dream. That kind of mindset runs totally counter to the ideas advocated for here. Autonomous decentralized local networks provides far more flexibility and security. On the other hand, picture 1 drops the ball once more. An example of business shìllese that conflates decentralized and distributed. In the latter, every node of a network is supposed to be linked at least to two other nodes. Now, how would this provide more energy and make it greener, I don't even know. Centralized networks don't use an excess of cables for starters. In fact, multiple nodes in a distributed scheme with possibly some redundancy would logically require more materials. The distributed method proves that it requires more connections.

>>90818 >Also, looking at this map, my current favorite for a solarpunk society is Mongolia now. They are used to a low-tech lifestyle, and I think most of their yurts are powered by solar panels nowadays. They are basically already living the solarpunk lifestyle. Are the photovoltaic panels built in yurt-factories? Theses example of cozy futuristic yurts are funny because a yurt's frame is all about glorified wood sticks covered with cloth and beast hides. Quick online check for modern or futuristic yurt gives you this, silly designs that come with very heavy hardware riveted in all sorts of places and they even come with windows, which as we all know are extremely lightweight, especially the three-foil types.

>>91724 some westerners did real ones in their garden. Saw vids showcasing how they build a second one but its been so long i dont even remember what they used for insulation.

https://www.gira.com/en/en/g-pulse-magazine/architecture/green-architecture# >How can we continue to increase our living comfort without harming our environment? This has become a central question in the building industry. As climate change progresses and resources run short, green architecture explores new avenues. We present five projects that offer a glimpse into a possible future. Running low on resources? A planet about to grill? Don't despair! Check my green roof with some sort of theme park golf course with minimal topsoil and no way to retain the water that will keep trickling down, thus requiring a constant artificial moisturizing from a pump system running 24/7 on magical fuel, installed at the topmost point of the building while the utter lack of forestry makes sure it will keep drying. https://big.dk/projects/copenhill-2391 And before you laugh at me, please understand that this is a very serious and professional proposal. If you don't believe me, check these references: >>Energy-efficient and sustainable: the key features of green architecture. Source: SLA Copenhagen, MVRDV VERO The only thing green here is the quotation text. >When it comes to architecture, “green” not only refers to plants or garden landscapes. It also includes paint? >The key goal is sustainability – in social, ecological, and social terms. Which materials we use for our homes not only affects the indoor air quality and our own health. In the long run, it also has a considerable impact on our planet at large. Eco-friendly or “green” architecture follows a holistic approach that takes the entire life cycle of a building into consideration. So we shall use "social" materials. Good to know. What are these? >This includes: > the use of long-lasting and recyclable materials such as concrete or wood Okay. We have never been replacing our urban buildings at a higher rate than during the last decade. The new ones, all cold, made of concrete, steel and glass, they look nowhere eco-friendly. You can't make skyscrapers out of wood either, sorry. Whatever they're smoking, that soykaf must be very green. The entirety of the production of concrete is perhaps one of the most polluting industries there is out there. > relying on renewable energy (e. g. solar, geothermal, or photovoltaic systems) The picture shows no evidence of geothermal activity to exploit and the absence of solar panels on the sloped roof of that big building is rather glaring, but that's because it's running on burnt rubbish. No, the tower at the top is not a fluffy cloud factory, it's the exhaust from an internal rubbish burned for that entire district. Without a doubt, this will smell like delicate flowers blooming in Spring. > utilising a construction’s exposure to sunlight to minimise the energy expenditure That building has no vertical surface more exposed to sunlight than any other building unless the flats facing north are simply not there, which would be wasteful of space. > space-saving constructions that require as little ground sealing as possible Hence the totally inefficient fancy shape of that building that also comes with a bonus as it casts a huge shadow over the park behind it. > economical use of water Hm... wait. What? > economical use of water > economical use of water > economical use of water > economical use of water > economical use of water > economical use of water > economical use of water > economical use of water The only way you can minimize the use of tap water is to filter the piss flushed by your neighbors living in the flats in the upper levels. So, not only you will own nothing, eat the bugz and live in pods, but you'll also drink the recycled piss and used water of people living above you. > 4. Valley in Amsterdam: green architecture design at the city centre >Did you know? Experts assume that by 2050, around 70 % of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. >Experts assume Post-covid, it's simply not what we are observing. People are fleeing the cities. Also, enjoy the wooden walls. What kind of chemicals are used to prevent the wood from, you know, absorbing water and disintegrating? Where are these chemicals produced and in what quantities? By what kind of industries? Better not look into that methinks.

>>91726 >i dont even remember what they used for insulation. Non chemically laced isolation materials? You know what? I think I'll just enjoy a typical English cottage instead.

>>91716 Because I'm so tired of what people sheltered from reality think is a good idea and then push it onto others to their detriment or all those green washing scams like >>91727 >>91727 I've been to some of these yuppie playgrounds. Looks interesting when you're there but having a "park" on top of a building seems more like an expensive gimmick that has little to do with ecological soundness. Like those indoor skiing resorts in Dubai. A better and obvious idea would be to place the park around the building and on proper ground while making the best use of the space and roof while being mindful of the structures to not occlude too much of the sun light from the greenery and vegetation. That daisy chained complex in the back seems more reasonable although projects like these are usually these miserable places due to being designed to be these single purpose low income housings with low ceiling cement prefab boxes that turn into baking ovens in the summer. >>91689 >>91691 Obviously there's little practival sense in building those 300 meter towers with attachable pods as the "Metabolists" envisioned. The "lattice" structure that I was describing would be fix and built to last. The most that's ever going to be attached are small balconies, fire exits and maybe sky bridges if you build them close to each other or "in parallel". The modularity would come from a layout that would allow for easier replacement of what's contained by that lattice of massive steel beams and stone, where walls and floors that might be made of light brick or pressurized wood (look into it), to be easier to replace or even reuse than to tear down and rebuild the entire thing. And if you run out of space you can extend the structure to the side. Or even the top within limits. Of coure this would be more effort than a bespoke building at the beginning but it could be much more future proof than the current housing accommodations and sky scrapers we have now. I do agree that there's little reason to build this unreasonably high in most places. People like to forget that it's not that trivial to retain water pressure up to the 5th floor, let alone the 50th. The design I proposed could be something where a single ring that stretches about 1.5km could house 50k-100k people while also providing office space, shops, restaurants and malls and parking and even small manufacturing space within that structure while having plenty of space for parks, cafes, separate school, university, concert hall buildings, etc. in the center. It's really all just about being more efficient and forward thinking with the available space, infrastructure and resources. While not being yet another commie block monstrosity. Those rings could then also be extended to a honey comb like structure, each having their own parks and niceties within, all on regular ground and soil. While the road network can be underneath the building complex. Which also would have to be much thinner than that "green architecture" in the example. I probably should throw together a quick sketch or schematic together some time. >>91723 There is an advantage to centralized grids though in regards to load balancing. A large grid can be much less fluctuating. While the advantage to a decentralized or distributed network is redundancy and lower dependence. But that's much more difficult to implement. Each actor or node needs to know what they're doing but today you can't even just feed your solar power back into the grid because you could accidentally fry the maintenance electricians down the road. >>91724 Yurts are actually a pretty neat low cost and fast dwelling solution while you're building your actual house.

>>91730 >Yurts are actually a pretty neat low cost and fast dwelling solution while you're building your actual house. Real yurts, yes. But not the bs round houses that LARP as neoyurts.

>>91730 > There is an advantage to centralized grids though in regards to load balancing. A large grid can be much less fluctuating. While the advantage to a decentralized or distributed network is redundancy and lower dependence. But that's much more difficult to implement. Each actor or node needs to know what they're doing but today you can't even just feed your solar power back into the grid because you could accidentally fry the maintenance electricians down the road Doesnt inherently have to be a grid at all if there is good battery storage everyone can just maintain their own power or power for a block.

>>91773 Frankly this. The ideal is supposed to be a mix of all, with some centralization and totally independent small groups producing their own energy. I don't get why all has to be in a network, no matter the type. Some kind of nonsensical communist approach to 'we all must support the load equally' impractical ideology?

>>91730 >or all those green washing scams like It seems the dumb take for greenoids really boils down to 'take X modern lugubrious stuff + add green texture' and voila. Green makes people happy. They see green, it's the magical color that makes everything better and pure.

>>91785 My views are pretty anti-capitalist so technically leftist in a more general sense and I am who you are replying to. Yes some things can be central if they have some need for it. I find it strange some people want complete centralization of power. Something like that would bear heavy loads on the power lines so you would get regular mass scale outages.

>>91773 battery power is the big if, though. most of our world in terms of power is based around batteries not really being there. yet battery tech has improved somewhat in the last few years, i wonder if there's some existing infrastructure that could be improved greatly. >>91786 im glad we all hate greenwashing here. a conservationist group i knew once used yellow as its primary color with red highlights specifically because they hated green soykaf so much. their propaganda went hard if i may be so honest

>>91794 I meant battery in the broad sense of energy storage. There are many forms of energy storage. There also are batteries that do not use rare earth minerals such as ones made of just salt water. There are some kinds of redox flow batteries that are pretty good for storage of power for homes and power plants.

>>91795 oh, i see. what are your thoughts of gravitation batteries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery

>>91800 I think flywheels with magnetic bearings and vacuum have more potential than gravity storage but it has it's uses.

>>91724 The Dymaxion House did it better.

>>91369 >lets calm down girls, its archived in the usual place, pic related. May you graciously share a link with us, great sensei?

Picrel is likely another example that solarpunkists would pick up as representative of their ill begotten movement. You would safely observe that it is widely apocalyptic in tone, a complete collapse of modern civilization and its related high technology. >>91800 Gravitational storage is seldom used despite the obvious uses and cheapness of it. Besides, storing water can be used for many other things, first of all fighting against fires, because when there's a raging fire that threatens buildings and industries, it's far more urgent to put it down than to give people electricity. >>91806 Thee are equally good. Obviously all sound systems should be combined.

>>90860 But like in physics, acceleration requires additional energy. In the case of human societies it takes the form of a manipulation of many minds to bring people to do a certain work in a given direction. Accelerationism is bogus. It was created by communists so that makes it suspect by default. But more importantly, only people with leverage and power can accelerate the frequency of changes in a given political system. To bring a system down by heightening its own rot, you need to increase the rot. Yet to this day it's precisely that very system that increases that rot, and only the people following that system's guidelines and principles manage to do that. Like in nature, what begins to rot cannot be reversed unless the dying matter is cut off, isolated, purged. You do not have enough power, or no power at all, to increase the degeneracy, and if you were to do so you would burn with it because you would be required to nurture this degeneracy with all your soul and body despite supposedly standing against it. It would destroy you for very little gain. In other words any appeal to acceleration is in fact a ploy to push sane people into becoming what they hate, instead of destroying it immediately. Your input into the accelerative pattern of the world would be inconsequential. By the time you would hold enough power to change the world, either you'd go with the flow or run for a hail mary.

>>91840 Accelerationism I dont think communists were the originators I think it was a psyop by large businesses because it is literally just laissez-faire capitalism.

>>91846 Yeah, accelerationism is the same as "the hand of the free market will magically sort everything out". "If we let this problem to fester, someone will fix it, so let it fester" vs "mankind, society, the earth are automatically inclined to fix problems." Turns out most people are not inclined to fix problems at all, especially if they gain advantage from utilizing the problems and especially if solutions require substantial independent unacknowledged efforts. Most people are instead inclined to follow "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" - don't point out problems & flaws, to avoid confrontation & your own vices being brought to attention. So they keep knowledge to themselves that could help others, and push the destructive lies to play along and keep a low profile. Most things cannot be fixed by individual efforts, but all things can be made worse through individual efforts & negligence.

accelerationism is really just the belief that your prefered system is more stable and any great disruption will generally lead you to it. Pursuit of the lowest energy state does not require great effort, just let the unstable collapse and there you'll be!

>>91723 So the reason we can't have free energy is because Alex Jones said it was globohomo?

>>91859 that whole system doesn't give you free energy though any more than the current one.

>>91846 It goes beyond laissez-faire because it's really about increasing capitalism. It's faster capitalism. It follows the idea that an increase of capitalism will lead to its collapse and replacement with the socialistic revolution and then true communism, some form post-socialism. It's a very disingenuous ideology making you believe (if you squint hard enough and accept love in your heart) that capitalism carries its own destructive seed as theorized by Marx, but there is simply no evidence of this because there was none to observe, it was all pure convenient conjecture. Accelerationism argues that a major change can be brought by pushing the current paradism to its limits. In this case, a capitalist society is the system under scrutiny and its demise is prophetisized as the fair communism is just round the corner. But when people realize that they are in no way powerful enough to bring about any change, they fall back onto believing that capitalism will trip over itself anyway. Hence laissez-faire capitalism. It's mirroring the socialist-communist dichotomy found in some places of this world, one simply going faster than the other. Of course capitalism never dies, countries being late to capitalism still develop their own poor laboring forces, and now we're seeing the synthesis of both capitalism and communism because both are just manipulative tools to keep destitute and abused populations in a state of constant hope, but the days of better justice simply never come.

>>91846 >>91865 I dont think people bother reading some academic definition, they have some existing knowledge a new word falls upon and just assume what it means. I.E i read about rise and fall of nations before hearing accelerationism and my first thought was well speeding up the fall to get into growth phase faster sounds good, no need to stretch out the misery of the decline years. Only that carries the risk of failing to crash the state landing from a tolerable middle into the final endstage of misery during your lifetime. Also the identified culprit in that is bureaucracy, good old corruption grows til the state can't carry the burden and collapses from which the process restarts. So the economic system doesn't really matter for the process. That aside laissez-faire means hands off, letting companies write laws is the opposite of that as it still involves the government. Real laissez-faire would be remove regulatory capture, especially laws like its illegal to write "our food doesn't use questionable processing method" because the lobby derezzed it to avoid competition on it.

>>91868 The regulations were under normal circumstances the wise acknowledgement that vast sums of funds are a power in themselves against which people can do little if there is no equally powerful mediator and protector to oppose it. But the government failed to oppose those who have such might because they're bought by these same forces. So removing regulations would be nothing more than letting the abusers have an even more open field to abuse their victims. It's the absolute dream of profiteers. They may boast that they buy the politicians while their desires become law, but by doing so they recognize that they still need to have the law on their side. Remove the regulations and you remove the last barrier we had against these forces. Then any dream of bucolic futures will be forever gone.

>>91870 If you look at it from a historic angle then these corps started in lawless regulatory free nations, grew big and then lobbied regulations to paywall market entry for competition. They wield bureaucracy as a tool to kill competition and already won control of government in that regard. Returning to a regulation free state and give rise to new competition is nothing to be afraid of if you arent one of those dominant corps. You could even let most laws untouched. Just remove IP laws and they would be finished from that alone as it would kill the practice to buyout new competition to control the market.

Solarpunk thread archive >>91183 >>91197 >>91335 Lains, sometimes the most blatant answers are right under your nose. First Solarpunk thread web.archive.org/web/20241214225113/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/78190.html Second Solarpunk thread web.archive.org/web/20250317193750/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/85465.html The Options menu is sufficiently functional and most of the pictures are available in full rez. In theory, the whole HTML file could be uploaded back onto lainchan's server. That would be a pro move. If you want to reply to a post from the first thread, the one that's not here anymore, I suggest you take one or more screen captures of it and attach them to your reply. There are tools you can download to build personnal archives on your computer or on the vapor. Or you can produce a PDF (print to PDF for example).

>>91872 >If you look at it from a historic angle then these corps started in lawless regulatory free nations, grew big and then lobbied regulations to paywall market entry for competition. They achieved this because the governing body let them do it, possibly because it was unprepared for it. Not because the laws weren't good enough, but the worm was already inside the fruit. Consider what the limitations were on corporation a century and a half ago with the very restrictive charters. A prepared and hardened government would have both prevented such takeovers from malicious agents while not stiffling creativity and entrepreneurship. >They wield bureaucracy as a tool to kill competition and already won control of government in that regard. For decades we've seen how the companies proceed, they always brute force their way through gaps and legal bodies are running after them, trying to patch up the widened holes. This happens because the overall environment is complicit of this farce. >Returning to a regulation free state and give rise to new competition is nothing to be afraid of if you arent one of those dominant corps. Excuse me but that is absolute libertarian brainrot, straight from the cancerous and fraudulent Milton Friedman's school of thought. If you were to remove all the laws today, the companies that have already accrued immense power would absolutely seize everything that they have not put their hands on yet in a heart beat, and there's no possible opposition to them that anyone could muster. There could be no competition because impossibly vast amounts of power and money have already been seized and secured in the hands of few and it definitely got worse within the last ten years. Entire consortiums can dump near trillions into vast projects wherein rich nations are cold with the idea of injecting more than hundreds of millions of their respective currencies alone. >You could even let most laws untouched. They're too weak and most importantly, still not sufficiently applied. Look the antitrust laws, they're a joke. Huge mergers would have never happened a century ago. Now it's just the new way of life. You would also have to change all politicians for something far stricter. >Just remove IP laws and they would be finished from that alone as it would kill the practice to buyout new competition to control the market. There would be absolutely no incentive for newcomers (if there could be any) to work on new ideas on their own and be unable to protect them. At least with the IP system the giants still have to ask to be able to use someone's inventions. With no IP protection whatsoever, the giants would simply look at them, pour limitless money into them with no obligation to give anything to inventors. Or inventors would have to always be bought. Either way there would be no competition at all. The only issue with the IP protection system is that it's too stiff and gives free rein to patent trolls.

>>91877 >At least with the IP system the giants still have to ask to be able to use someone's inventions. They dont ask they steal, gov glowies run corporate espionage and funnel stolen tech to their countries own megacorps and on a legal route they capture tech by extending patents to cut off your path since you now need their patent to use what you invented first. And startups cant even start competing because they aren't allowed to use the tech held hostage by IP laws. If you look at what's currently happening they aren't adopting the tech they buy out. They simply kill it so they can keep selling their existing product without competition. Without IP laws they would be forced to improve or die.

>>91878 >They dont ask they steal, gov glowies run corporate espionage and funnel stolen tech to their countries own megacorps and on a legal route they capture tech by extending patents The stealing is only a portion of the war for patents. A lot of it is managed legally. Patent extensions should be meaningless without owning the initial patent the extensions stem from. So the issue is really elsewhere. The possibility that the patent laws be redacted in a way to allow for this fraud didn't cross your mind? The patent laws should give an advantage to the inventor and make the initial patent necessary to prevent fraudulent branching, but also force them to exploit the patent otherwise after a short number of years it would be up for grabs. Then after a short decade, it would still slide into the public domain. We're not on a rush and a short decade is more than enough to establish a solid grounding without yet blocking a whole civilization's advance. These simple changes would make a huge difference. The IP law could protect inventors but it wouldn't stall innovation indefinitely.

>>91879 The legal path is also done with corruption. Examples: nike stole patented sportswear from a startup and when the lawsuit came up they forced court to be held in small city where most worked in the nike factory. Naturally judge ruled in nikes favor. They then offered the startup here's 100k so we officialy own it take it or get fuarrrked. As they couldnt afford fighting nike they accepted. nivida copied amd when they started and just prolonged court procedings on patent infringement while making money of selling their copied gpu's, then patented an extension of the tech that amd also had to rely on first and forced a settlement in court. The law doesn't protect the small ones. If you have money you can ignore the law and so the only function of the laws is protecting the big ones against the small ones. And the big ones get insane patents like "round corners" patented. The whole system is simply abused by corruption and you wont fix that by making new rules they ignore.

>>91883 It's sad, however you are precisely showing that the patent system and the regulations that surround it at large are completely rigged. It is not limited to commercial law at all. Saying the regulations shouldn't exist because the corporations have perverted everything does in no way prove that fair regulations should not exist. In fact they should and should be strong enough to have these corporations shut their mouth. It would be a political question more than a business one and it should require breaking the power of corporations. They can ignore other laws because there too the entire system is rigged. This age we live in of massive companies that gather more money than decent countries' own GDP is specific to our current era, that of the rule by traders through mass consumption. We could not even imagine one moment step back a century or two from this model. Well, some in solarpunk say they can but how they pretend to achieve that is hardly explained. Short of a war, some natural catastrophe that triggers a world collapse or something just as gigantic that would almost turn us into passive cows, there's no clarity as to how this industry of abuse can disappear. Capitalism reaches the point of consolidation where it's become very hard for anyone to work hard and with discipline, make it through life and enjoy some serious success without having to sell out to the status quo.

>>91887 The root problem lies in the financial system. Yearly growing inflation demands growing profits just to stay afloat. Infinite growth cant be done and so people are forced on crooked paths to sustain growth. Kill the fiat system and you kill the main driver for growing corruption. Second cause would be publicly traded companies shouldn't be obliged into suicide to maximize shortterm yield for shareholders. Also for those not paying attention: we are about to get fiat on steroids with central banked digital currency. Europe plans to launch their cbdc project digital euro in october. When they tried cbdc in nigeria before it included features like expiration date to force people into spending. People refused using it and the gov tried to force it on them with draconian laws though the nigerian people were smart enough to not give in.

>>91864 So you absolutely didn't Google the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or the Dymaxion Global Energy Grid before commenting?

>>91893 both as free and infinite as the wind and neither have bearing on large electrical networks

>>91896 Are you a bot? There is no capitalisation and you act like you're arguing but it's just word salad.

>>91887 I am not the lainon you replied to, but I want to expand along this line of discussion. You say that corrupt state institutions do not invalidate the merits of fair and effective policy. In principle, this is true. But you disregard the fact that corrupt state institutions make the merits of such policy irrelevant, because in practice they will not exist. Moreover, even fair and effective IP laws impose significant restrictions on everyone, big business and small-timer alike. An anarchical IP environment would allow society to realize the benefits of free and uncommodified information, while forgoing the costs of the corrupt IP system: armies of lawyers, fortunes of legal fees, and years of time spent in court.

>>91896 And what are you babbling on about? The World Power Grid is literally a large electrical network. The secret to free power is scale, the wind is always blowing somewhere in a 500 mile radius, you have enough wind farms and link all the world's power grids together with a few conventional and nuclear stations to take up the slack and it'll support itself.

>>91893 >muh free energy So what's stopping you? What's stopping anyone? Google pays billions of dollars a year on electricity to keep all their servers running. If your argument is that the reason they don't use your magic free energy technology is because they're just too dumb to do a google search then I suspect you're full of soykaf. >>91865 >It goes beyond laissez-faire because it's really about increasing capitalism. It's faster capitalism. Every year we get bigger government and more regulations and more government interference in the market. 70 years ago we put communists in jail and now communism is taught by every school and university. Politicians openly brag about being socialists but call someone right-wing or a capitalist and their career is over. I get it we're not living in your communist utopia but it is completely asinine to pretend that this is therefor laissez-faire capitalism. There are about a million steps in between those extremes.

>>91903 >secret to free power is scale; the wind is always blowing somewhere in a 500mi radius.... that may be the secret to high availability power but it is not free power. You want power, your neighbor wants power, some guy a thousand miles away wants power, and now you have a bidding war, this ontop of the fact that the stuff isn't free to produce to begin with....those wind turbines take maintenance, installation costs, property taxes, those other plants also take fuel, maintenance, et cetera. Can't just give the power away for free. This all goes for the grid as well. there is a lot of energy in the wind, but there's not infinite wattage. Other systems like the weather also require some amount of wattage to continue as they do, extract enough and you will see interesting effects. Same goes for the ocean thermal gradients, etc etc. Frankly extracting from these sources has a more obvious and direct effect on climate than the greenhouse stuff. Nothing in this life is perfect.

>>91903 >The secret to free power is build more redundancy >the wind is always blowing somewhere That's the answer to wind and solar's unreliability problem but it is certainly not going to reduce costs or environmental impact.

>>91904 >So what's stopping you? What's stopping anyone? The power grid already harvests static electricity in the wind via power lines and electricity pylons. Like the legend, the lines are the keys, the air constantly brushes against the lines and power is drawn into them. Similarly to how plants absorb static electricity to grow.

>>91906 Was already brought up in a previous thread there is wind generators with no moving parts and can go on rooftops. Was already mentioned in this thread solar panels can just go on rooftops and parts can be replaced the whole thing doesnt inherently need replaced. Also total energy can be reduced. You can improve passive heating and cooling of homes, zero energy refrigeration units, and there are alternatives to silicon computers that use less energy. "AI" and blockchain grifts also need to go they are highly inefficient using up more electricity and internet bandwidth.

>>91902 >You say that corrupt state institutions do not invalidate the merits of fair and effective policy. In principle, this is true. And that is all that matters. Otherwise your approach to life is the cynical one where there will never be a benevolent government, or at least one that truly and honestly strives to become one every single day. >Moreover, even fair and effective IP laws impose significant restrictions on everyone, big business and small-timer alike. Yes, such is the purpose of fair law. Restrictions are not a bad thing, safe for liberal absolutists. >An anarchical IP environment would allow society to realize the benefits of free and uncommodified information The patents are not much about having access to free or paid information but about the right to apply a certain type of knowledge. Gatekeeping in other words. But before the days of cynicism, gate keeping was seen as an essential function of a guardian system. Corruption throws everything upside down. What would be your incentive to invent anything new if as soon as it would go public, your only choice would be to be bought off anyway or even not get a single penny because nobody is ought to pay you for your invention that's automatically made accessible to all without any protection? It's nothing more than disguised forced sharing and dispossesses people of the property they created. More precisely, in this case, the intellectual property. >>91904 >Every year we get bigger government and more regulations and more government interference in the market. That only affects the smaller businesses. They are paid to let those who profit through capitalism to keep going unabated. >70 years ago we put communists in jail and now communism is taught by every school and university. Which is just a farce because communism is only applied to the lower classes. Capitalism and communism now coexist, one above the other. >Politicians openly brag about being socialists They lie and use skewed definitions, so whatever they say is largely irrelevant. >it is completely asinine to pretend that this is therefor laissez-faire capitalism. Because you naively think that capitalism is good. You don't understand that it is not. Regulations are meant to protect the people, applied by a strong government. Otherwise capitalists buy and ruin everything, suck all the money and nothing is left for the proles who are pushed onto a UBI scheme while promised more social justice. Because it is about pretending having a solution when the medicine is just as bad as.

>>91907 Please post a sourced paper or something otherwise I'll have a hard time taking your claims seriously. Power lines are ought to lose energy, if only because of inherent material resistance. If what you said were true there would be a surge of energy at the end of a network, which would be an issue for obvious reasons since it would at the very least require that part of the network to be built stronger to handle the excess of energy, as if multiple rivers gathered into one single lake.

>>91907 >So what's stopping you? What's stopping anyone? You didn't answer the question. Why are you talking to me? If you know how to make free energy then go and do it and become a zillionaire. If it requires money then go and talk to google, amazon, microsoft etc. they would love to know how to do this. >>91910 >solar panels can just go on rooftops and parts can be replaced the whole thing doesnt inherently need replaced. Solar energy is not free. You need materials, labor and energy to manufacture the panels which have a limited lifetime before more materials, labor and energy is needed. What are you even saying, if santa clause gives us solar panels then we have free energy hurr durr, what kind of 12 year old communist mentality is that. >>91911 >That only affects the smaller businesses. They are paid to let those who profit through capitalism to keep going unabated. Laissez-faire literally means no government interference in the market. You're admitting that government creates artificial monopolies by regulating smaller competitors out of existence. Not only is that not capitalism but those entities that only exist through government interference are not profit maximizing companies anymore they are effectively branches of the state. >They lie and use skewed definitions, so whatever they say is largely irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that you and most other people have been trained to think `socialism == good` and `capitalism == bad`. We don't have to argue about what these labels "really" mean to see where society is heading. >Because you naively think that capitalism is good. You don't understand that it is not. Laissez-faire capitalism means you keep 100% of what you earn and can spend it on whatever you want. That is not the world we live in. Taxes keep going up and the list of things the government lets us buy keeps going down. I'd argue that workers having full economic freedom and keeping everything they earn is actually "good" but most people who identify as communists are not actually workers. >Regulations are meant to protect the people That's trivial to disprove. Lawmakers basically only pass laws that corporations lobby for. And regulations keep piling up year after year. Why would the corporations continue lobbying for more and more regulations if it's hurting them? The answer is they lied to you, regulations are not protecting you from corporate exploitation, regulations are how the corporations are exploiting you in the first place. The last thing big companies want is a free market where they have to struggle everyday on a level playing field for their continued survival. >Otherwise capitalists buy and ruin everything, suck all the money and nothing is left This is more lies they told you so you would defend the status quo. The reason blackrock owns everything is because government money is not real. They literally print is out of thin air and give it to themselves. Blackrock doesn't provide any value to anyone they're just exploiting the government's infinite money glitch. Once you get government out the market then the only way for a company to make money is to provide value to customers. Economics of scale exists but only up to a point. When a company gets too big communication breaks down they turn conservative and stagnate. That's when smaller, agile, more innovative startups rise up to take their place if there is no government to block them. This idea that one company will just buy everything and stay big forever is nonsense for so many reasons. That's what's happening right now because of government not in spite of it. >suck all the money and nothing is left for the proles My post is getting long but this is important. Companies cannot "suck" money from you. Only the government can do that (e.g. taxes). If you don't like what a company sells then don't buy it. The only way they can force you to buy things against your will is via government (e.g. insurance). >who are pushed onto a UBI scheme UBI is a government program. When the government does stuff that's not laissez-faire. >Because it is about pretending having a solution when the medicine is just as bad as. You are the one who has been tricked into attacking the medicine. You don't even need to know anything about economics to just follow the trend. Things used to be better when a working class man could support a wife and children on a single income. That's when we had smaller government, hard money, and more capitalism. As we move away from those 3 things everything keeps getting worse.

>>91902 >an anarchical IP environment would allow society to realize the benefits of free and uncommodified information, while forgoing the costs of the corrupt IP system: armies of lawyers, fortunes of legal fees, and years of time spent in court. except in an anarchic system, if someone invents some new technique they are strongly motivated to keep it secret to the greatest extent possible. The whole point of the patent system (which doesn't work perfectly) is that rather than keeping ideas secret inventors can publicly describe ideas and call dibbs on their use, thus gaining an advantage against those who might come up with it later, and gaining the freedom to make their inventions available without covetous guarding of the secrets. Done well patents can permit discoveries to be publicly examined and discussed and discourages secrecy which is otherwise obviously reasonable

https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2024/wargaming-the-future-of-climate-change.html >The Pentagon has freed up millions of dollars to better incorporate climate change into its wargames. Researchers at RAND now routinely work climate disasters into their game scenarios, from rising sea levels that put bases underwater to blistering heat waves that make it dangerous to operate outside. The card game that Rooney developed shows just how serious games can be for communicating the science of climate change. >rising sea levels that put bases underwater >blistering heat waves that make it dangerous to operate outside Those super real multi-million wargame literally are "what if Waterworld?" or "what if Mad Max?" Come the fuarrrk on now. >Rooney and other wargamers at RAND started working with Tingstad and other climate scientists. They dug through studies, reviewed climate models and risk assessments, and pulled in the latest projections from the World Bank and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. >A few represent extreme events: “No water, no lights, no hope.” >And the unluckiest players might draw a catastrophe card: “Mumbai, a city lost at sea.” This will be a funny game in ten years. >Researchers have played the game several times with military officials. Players often question whether the scenarios they draw from the deck are really all that plausible. One card, for example, shows the breakdown of the annual monsoon that delivers most of India's rainfall. Players have pushed back on that one, sure that it must be a low-probability risk. But the researchers tell them: Not only is that well within the climate projections for 2040, it's not even one of the extreme-event cards in the deck. Shit I'm scared now. Is it like the Illuminati card game?

>>91913 > Solar energy is not free. You need materials, labor and energy to manufacture the panels which have a limited lifetime before more materials, labor and energy is needed. What are you even saying, if santa clause gives us solar panels then we have free energy hurr durr, what kind of 12 year old communist mentality is that. I never even said or implied that but "free power/energy" has multiple meanings. I was just replying to who I replied to which was about environmental impact and costs. Yes materials to build things in a capitalist society cost money, no soykaf, that's something obvious that doesn't need said.

Anyone who unironically uses political comics made by politically illiterate grifters like >>91913 is doing are best ignored. Dumbass was trying to push nuclear while arguing costs but it's most expensive per kilowatt than any other form of energy.

>>91919 wargames are a useful tool for security professionals to engage with other, less qualified positions on their project and include their input in assessment - if you're not familiar, then you should probably lurk more. I can't say its my favorite form of risk assessment (personally prefer statistically weighted CRAMs) but it is a valid one that is shown to reduce risk and has been used by governments and businesses for decades. there's other frameworks in use too, but they're more complex and harder to explain to laypeople. as for the global warming stuff, the pentagon has been factoring it into their machinations for decades as well. attached is a secret report that was commissioned by Andrew Marshall in 2003 and whose leakage was highly publicized the next year. its not the only such report from the pentagon that has made it into publicity, there was a major one in 2015 if i recall correctly and a pretty significant history of such pentagon research. if you don't know who Andrew Marshall is, its okay but he was one of the USA's most valued strategists for 40 years. he was director of the office of net assessment from 1973 to 2015, and worked directly with every president during that period. here's some other links. https://www.iatp.org/news/leaked-pentagon-report-warns-climate-change-may-bring-famine-war https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1 https://wikileaks.org/berats-box/emailid/26328 https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/18/1824868_re-eurasia-for-marc-fwd-alpha-insight-global-warming-.html >is it like the illuminati card game? i appreciate that you know what that is. don't you think its interesting how steve jackson got raided by feds? >>91923 you're still giving them the engagement they're looking for. just report the post and don't give them any attention

>>91928 the cia tried using magic in their research (remote viewing etc.) guess you should believe in magic too now... the saner consideration is they benefit from spreading global warming propaganda and thus claim to believe in it. Global warming is a strategic play itself.

>>91905 You're saying that sucking power out of the wind and ocean with turbines will somehow deplete them. I'm so sorry, I had no idea I was talking to an actual retard. I'll stop making fun of you now.

>>91932 wow you know now that I think about it I guess there's also an infinite supply of oil you've just got to keep pumping. thanks for the reminder Its not that you'll burn out all the wind forever but turbines slow the wind and stir it. If you don't think this has environmental effects then you must have a block of wood where your brain is supposed to be. If you want ackademick research into it well golly it does exist. I don't expect anyone knows for sure what the results would be from 20x expanded wind generation (I'm sure it also depends on location and type of turbines etc etc) but there absolutely will be an effect and there already are local climate effects. In all these cases you are capturing kinetic or potential energy from an active system, this obviously changes the behavior of the system! https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X

>>91928 >as for the global warming stuff, the pentagon has been factoring it into their machinations for decades as well. it makes sense that murrica would deny climate change to their advantage, knowing full well that it's a reality. Given their "zero-sum-game" approach to geopolitics, and their all-pervasive "harm others for us to thrive" philosophy, it makes sense that they would cash in on climate change for their war games. At first it would seem contradictory, but seeing it under this lens it makes perfect sense.

>>91934 specific to murrica saw news of California getting their water stolen by neighbor state using cloud seeding. (cloud seeding means letting rain fall earlier = neighbor behind you gets a drought as you hoard all rain water to yourself)

>>91934 >as for the global warming stuff, the pentagon has been factoring it into their machinations for decades as well. The pentagon budget has $35 trillion unaccounted for to date. The money is just gone, nobody knows what they spent it on. If your argument is that the pentagon is a serious and efficient organization who wouldn't waste money on global warming nonsense then that is not even close to being true. >>91929 >the cia tried using magic in their research (remote viewing etc.) guess you should believe in magic too now... Turning to the CIA for confirmation on global warming is even worse since the entire reason spy agencies exist is to lie and manipulate people.

>>91922 >Yes materials to build things in a capitalist society cost money, no soykaf Digging rare earth metals out of the ground always requires labor. I guess you can argue that capitalism forces you to pay your workers whereas under communism everything is "free" because workers are literally slaves of the state. That's probably not the point you're trying to make though. >>91923 >political comics made by politically illiterate grifters The truth hurts doesn't it. >Dumbass was trying to push nuclear while arguing costs but it's most expensive per kilowatt than any other form of energy. The artificially high price of nuclear energy is entirely down to government regulations lobbied for by oil corporations who want to keep their energy monopoly. The only reason you are anti-nuclear is because you download all your political opinions from corporate media who spread lies on behalf of big oil. >you're still giving them the engagement they're looking for. just report the post and don't give them any attention I'm looking for better arguments so I can learn something. You don't respond because you don't have better arguments. You are angry about it because you care more about ideology than truth.

>>91982 >I'm looking for better arguments so I can learn something. You don't respond because you don't have better arguments. You are angry about it because you care more about ideology than truth. I'm not the person who sealioned 3 different people in their post, and I'm not sure why you would get that impression i was or what it even is I'm supposed to be responding to. I check lainchan once a week. >>91928 is my first reply to the thread. >>91929 well as >>91981 so graciously explained to us the CIA and the pentagon are two different authorities with different objectives, methods, operations, and everything else. one's defense and the other's intelligence. >>91934 yup and they say it in the wikileaks emails themselves. there were a couple of references i forgot to include in my last post about this too. >>91981 I agree the pentagon is way over budget and I would believe that amount of money has disappeared over the years. but I am curious where your estimate comes from if there's no idea where the money went anyways. a link to any organizations that do this kind of reporting would be helpful. >If your argument is that the pentagon is a serious and efficient organization who wouldn't waste money on global warming nonsense then that is not even close to being true. That is not my argument and I would like it if you didn't attack strawmen in front of me. >Turning to the CIA for confirmation on global warming is even worse since the entire reason spy agencies exist is to lie and manipulate people. nobody is saying this partner, you might want to work on your reading comprehension

>>91991 Military likes to call attacking another country first a pre-emptive defensive strike. The defense label exists solely for marketing to civilians. Taking the name literally is silly. Secondary everyone should know by now that military became a circus show for politics, when politics demanded a women quota in the force they had to drop standards and add extreme help in exams to make a show out of how we got women in special forces for press release. I wouldn't rely on anything they publish for evidence.

>>91992 >Taking the name literally is silly. you seem very confused. at no point did i say the department of defense was interested in defense in a like, videogames definition of the term. the point is that intelligence and military are still a bit difference, unless you would also go back and dispute that too. yes there is military intelligence but that is military, hopefully you can grasp the nuance there. > when politics demanded a women quota in the force now i know you're spilling bullshit. at no point did the military have a sex quota.

>>91982 > The truth hurts doesn't it. You do realize Ayn Rand was a fangirl of a serial killer, right? > The artificially high price of nuclear energy is entirely down to government regulations lobbied for by oil corporations who want to keep their energy monopoly. The only reason you are anti-nuclear is because you download all your political opinions from corporate media who spread lies on behalf of big oil. Everything about capitalist market is "artificial". Prices are not determined by demand directly but whatever is decided by the private businesses and what people do manage to pay for. Without government initiatives to develop nuclear there wouldn't even be nuclear energy as an option to begin with because it was never seen as profitable. It was developed by German and American government funding not the private market. Saying it's cost is artificial is just ignoring that it's a preferred from of energy by various governments so they would rather make it cheaper. Yes politicians often are corrupted by money but oil companies are not the only ones with lobbying power. There are countering lobbyist efforts. Also they are not even in direct competition. You arent going to be driving around nuclear cars any time soon or have a nuclear backup generator in your garage.

>>91996 eu directive made esg mandatory and esg prohibits nuclear promotion. Companies can't say anything positive about nuclear or they face financial repercussions. France is still running reactors of course but its still correct to say its getting suppressed. esg inventor who lobbied it into eu is heavily invested in coal. So they are in direct competition because they both produce electricity.

>>91997 The situation would differ some country to country of course. Yes they both produce electricity, that is obvious, but not really for the same uses all around. Coal and natural gas is what power plants use, but diesel and gasoline is not.

>>91998 i dont get your point, its just guys running coal power plants lobbying against nuclear power plants to limit competition. What do they care where the electricity is used?

>>91922 >Yes materials to build things in a capitalist society cost money They cost money in any kind of society though unless you directly pay your workers with bread, chicken and ale. >>91923 I would like to see numbers regarding the cost of nuclear electricity when all is considered: costs of construction and maintenance and replacement of plants, management of spent fuel, plus the specific nuclear fuel extraction, preparation and shipping. But regardless of the cost it remains the energy source with the highest density we presently control on Earth.

>>92013 Solarpunk themed nucpow.

>>91937 It's impressive how few people know about this technology today. >>91982 >The artificially high price of nuclear energy is entirely down to government regulations lobbied for by oil corporations who want to keep their energy monopoly. It's also to break the economy so a whole swathe of a nation's wealth in people's hands becomes accessible for grabs by large groups. The purpose is the privatization of all possible assets. But for that to happen, ownership has to be destroyed. Inflating prices of an essential resource such as energy is the way to go to create a small scale catastrophe. We get back to corps sucking the life out of nations. That's Cyberpunk 101. Yet they're the ones shìlling the new green deal. Odd isn't it?

>>91875 That simply does not explain why it was deleted in the first place.

>>91937 >stolen the waterwars between California and Arizona are nothing new, California has tried to overexert its control on the Colorado before. Tried, and failed.

>>91993 >now i know you're spilling bullshit. at no point did the military have a sex quota. Championing equality certainly looks like a thinly veiled one and forcing women into the military obviously implies that there's an objective of a given percentage, which might be as much as possible for all we know. >>91996 >You arent going to be driving around nuclear cars any time soon or have a nuclear backup generator in your garage. How about an electric car that uses electricity produced by a nuclear plant? Is that not direct enough? Or excess electricity used to produce hydrogen? From the previous thread >hydrogen >>86370 >>86371 >>86373 >>87216

>>92017 what waterwars? aint that what the US is tryna do now with Northern Canada, what ur talking 'bout? Feel like that's the most actual one

Hydrogen technology in the long run means reducing the available water on the planet. Hydrogen as the lightest and less dense molecule will just seep into space. Might as well just shoot water into the orbit with rockets. Pretty smart for a water-based life form to electrolyze tons of water just to get to work or buy soykaf off Amazon. I am exaggerating of course, but from that point of view, it makes more sense to just use the fossil juice, because nobody really needs that to survive.

Coming back to this thread to be reminded of why people who're actually still believing in communism are at least partially responsible for us to be in the mess that we are in. And others believing in the false dichotomy of capitalism aren't much better either. You're still bound by marxian dialectics but you don't even get it. The problem is inherent with the structures that form with large scale numbers of specimen of a race that individually has an ego and general desire to maximize resource availability for themselves. Something very sensible if you're a small primitive tribe but not so much if you're an industrial behemoth, with all these individual interests adding up to an untamable monstrosity that dooms itself in the long run. None of this blank-slater nonsesnse is going to change that. No matter how often your trim the top. Give up your envy driven ideology already if you don't wish to waste further bandwidth or the air around a discussion which doesn't need your input, but is only hindered by it. And trying to sound smart won't help anyone either, not even you since people with some brain can see through your meaningless buzzwords like muh materialism. Especially if the nature of the problem is that of material scarcity. You are not being smart, you're being obstructive, whether knowingly or not. Human greed and envy is something that transcends these trite political systems and is an aspect of our very primal core. How we get to reign those in is our big task this century. It is a compelling argument that the CIA tries to fuarrrk with other nations, making them think that it's in their interest to deindustrialize. But also someone's still making a killing of selling all their wind and solar generators that are planted all over the landscape. And there's as always an interest of a relatively small population of people to have the overwhelming rest to be dependent on them, be it energy or other resources. It might be a complex issue just to figure out all the incentives and their true distribution but these are all plausible so far. >>92015 >the purpose is the privatization of all possible assets. But for that to happen, ownership has to be destroyed. Probably is splitting hairs here but privatization includes the ownership of entrepreneurs as well. I'd say it's more of a soft seizure. Those property inheritance taxes that were passed in Britain recently are a good example of that. But this also includes inflation which slowly eats away on your savings. Not that much different than a corporation buying up all competitors and now you have to use a subscription to consoom all your media slop. Only thing they can't really do, or at least not as easily is to send some boots to your house door. We're stuck in quite a precarious situation with the door locked and you're wasting everyone's attention and time to argue about the color of the floor tiles.

>>92052 >Those property inheritance taxes that were passed in Britain recently are a good example of that. But this also includes inflation which slowly eats a Inheritance tax is only robbing the poor people. Rich park their wealth in countries with no inheritance tax. Similar inflation affects poor wagies disproportionate because wages are adjusted for income. Inflation increases the number so you move into higher tax brackets and get taxed more. Companies /investors meanwhile enjoy a fixed flat tax that doesn't care about that. They however experience wagies getting more expensive and are incentivized to cut you off which also drives reliance on outsourcing / importing cheap immigrant labor.

>>92053 I would go further: those laws have been created at the demand of the wealthy dynasties. New intergenerational fortunes threaten their position and dilute their power. By forcing then non initiates to break those fortunes in making, they secure their status of new aristocrats. Only fortunes created in only one life can threaten them now, but hose are limited in number and usually don't survive 2 or 3 generations. >>92029 The wars in Ukraine and in Gaza both include grudges about water being reoriented by the country it come from. Obviously, without the other issues, they would have found a solution that don't involve killing people.

>>92056 what dynasties are we talking about here

>>92057 not him but old families run the world. Like the eu is the brainchild of man from a duke household that used to run currency union between kings during middle ages. The modern war economy is also run by families that were already a plague french royalty complained about.

>>92057 The majority of the wealth in the UK is possessed by only 50 families. https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/457518/the-20-richest-people-and-families-in-the-uk-ranked

>>92037 >claims about hydrogen >I am exaggerating of course Is there anything of value in what you typed about hydrogen or were you just making stuff up? I'm all for a serious discussion. >fossil juice Are we even sure it's that? >>92052 I would disagree with that. Society in the 50s seemed far more functional than in the 70s, and even more when compared to that of the 90s. There is room for complex cultures that can work. >Probably is splitting hairs here but privatization includes the ownership of entrepreneurs as well. It's elite ownership vs plebeian ownership. Both extremes are definitely noxious. >>92053 >Similar inflation affects poor wagies disproportionate because wages are adjusted for income. Looks like you meant adjusted for inflation. And you would have wanted to say not adjusted for inflation, when the real issue I believe is how much of the cake is taken by those who already have too much of it. >Inflation increases the number so you move into higher tax brackets and get taxed more. Fair point but wouldn't that be due to the brackets not being properly adapted?

>>92060 >Fair point but wouldn't that be due to the brackets not being properly adapted? Yes. All the middle income people would belong in low income if we adjusted for inflation. I think its a intentional setup to gradually tax people more and more with each year.

>>92060 When wages are adjusted for inflation, it's called hyperinflation because the new inflated wages have to be reflected in the prices that already increase due to the lower value of the monetary unit. We are in the situation where rich people steal the worker's hard earned money with their capital, the administrators steal the worker's hard earned money by their position in the administration and the deadweights steal the worker's money by exchanging their votes for the money of the workers. There is simply too many people leeching a skeleton economy that also suffer from decades of negative trade balance, inflation, overegulation and policies that make economic activities harder, like net 0. We are at the point where working is simply not worth it anymore. Yet without work being done...

>>92059 a large proportion of these are new wealth >>92063 >When wages are adjusted for inflation, it's called hyperinflation when wages are not adjusted for inflation its actually called insanity. Hyperinflation is when inflation happens really fast.

>>92063 thats what the bankers tell you to convince you inflation is good but you shouldn't benefit from it as they print money for themself.

>>92064 >a large proportion of these are new wealth Hence the law about inheritance tax. >when wages are not adjusted for inflation its actually called insanity No, it's called reality. The rich own the press, which mean in a democracy they are the kingmakers, which mean they indirectly make the laws. I may be too much in conspiracy theories but I think this is why all the democracies printed money like there is no tomorrow in the first place.

>>92066 i believe printing is just easier. If you print crazy most of the public doesn't take notice nor understand how it affects them. And you can adjust how much you print without anyone taking notice. If you were to utilize taxation and dynamically adjust taxes frequently everyone would freak out.

>>92067 when hyperinflation has occurred people freak out. Even relative normal people in relatively low hyper inflation. Ask any argentines today, or germans in the 30s, etc etc. Some inflation maybe can boil the frog without him noticing, but it gets to the point where its inescapably obvious. maybe normal people and idiots have lost their savings by that point, but they notice.

>>92074 Food prices about doubled from ~2916 to now among other things, the media denied scope of inflation and no mass riots occurred. What did happen is that 20% of the whole food customers went to cheap discounters. So they noticed having not enough money and accepted being poor and that was the end of it. Part of the problem is you have this crazy image of hyperinflation and compare the current soykafshow to it to say well its not that bad yet so its fine.

>>91716 it's particularly funny because solarpunk is supposed to be "futuristic" but it's going to age so quickly in 10 or 20 years because energy generation will look nothing like this. either solar panels and windmills will look completely different or we'll have a different energy source by then.

>>92081 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/03/13/european-parliament-approves-legal-requirement-to-install-solar-on-buildings/ >It sets a timeline of integrating solar installations into building works of new commercial and public buildings by 2026, on commercial and public buildings that undergo relevant renovations by 2027, on new residential buildings by 2029 and on existing public buildings by 2030. Maybe they will revert it but it looks like they will actually force everyone to coat their buildings in solar panels.

>>92082 >>92081 Energy generation is very interesting and is at the heart of many science fiction universes. Nor does it hurt to partake in such discussions since energy is one of the resources humans fight over for survival. Our civilizations and our capacity to produce more work directly depend on how much energy we can easily produce. Cheap and abundant energy enables the multiplication of work. On the question of whether energy sources could be radically different from what we know, there's always this other path you may want to explore, https://www.randallcarlson.com/the-malcolm-bendall-lectures/ and this video https://youtu.be/XbJT0wdm-a8. Not saying it's true either. Bendall is a complicated character who is not without his own controversies it may seem. More on Bendall: https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/oil-man-malcolm-bendalls-company-named-in-panama-papers/news-story/0708557653ff792834c17aaaee677573

>>92091 Is it between the science of afterlife and the massonic connection to the plasma generators of the pyramids? I am mostly afraid that we won't have a full generation of fusion reactors deployed once we run out of oil. If this happen, we will know the fate of the bronze age civilization that ran out of bronze: all the towns disappeared, population was divided by 10 and it took them centuries to recover. And in our case, we won't have oil to dig, so there won't be a recovery. All it would take to save mankind is 1% of the money wasted on solar and wind.

degrowth is good depopulation is good off grid and self sufficiency are good ecological sustainability is good

>>92093 No need to fear anything, biofuels have already solved this many decades ago, whether they're crops on lands or algae farms on sea shores. The only reason we don't see them more is because they're blocked by the anti-carbon mafia.

>>92091 https://remoteview.substack.com/ /p/power-from-small-suns

>>92098 >degrowth is good Not if you want scientific and technological breakthroughs and advancement of the human species so they actually don't need to pollute as much and burn anything they can get their hands on just to stay warm in the winter. >depopulation is good Start with yourself. >off grid and self sufficiency are good Yes but it's not scalable. That's the entire issue here. >ecological sustainability is good Yes, but people don't care if they're not getting by due to all this "green realpolitik" insanity and scams. You first need to get people into a position where it even makes sense for them to even think about a future worth sustaining. But wanting them all dead and extinct is not it.

>>92101 I dont think fusion energy is impossible but it clearly hasn't been achieved at this point. There have been some promising looking points over the years, and several promising ideas are presently being seriously pursued, but the project broadly remains something to gamble on, not to count on. >>92098 why?

>>92076 >food prices doubled I'm sorry but true as this may be basically everyone in my social circle talks about it. This happened and as far as I can tell everyone noticed it, and this isn't even that bad as inflation can go.

>>92124 Food prices have also increased at discounters. People forget to look at the price per weight. The shrinking of an offered quantity of a given product at a stabilized price is "shrinkflation" and it happens for real, but it has been going on for much more than a decade easily, well observed on the size of goods (or the quantity thereof in a box for example) dropping while prices barely moved or even went up at varying rates. People cannot fight against that because nearly all providers are massive and centralized and little ones cannot compete both because of fiscal pressure and asymmetrical competition. So people are forced to get their stuff from large distributors, either brick and mortar or online, and all talks about making production and distribution more local are but a drop in the bucket which are obviously not followed by the governments since they're all in the pockets of these megagroups that want to own everything. It may not be fun to hear but Big Corp does own your government, but it is not done for the sake of making money because that is only the method. What we are talking about here is a thirst for true power over a limited amount of resources gathered under the term Earth.

>>92082 Mandatory solar panels. They'll keep talking of a successful adoption, as if people had a choice. But you have a choice, because they say so. Take this bit of typical corpol speech: >Jan Osenberg, Senior Policy Advisor at SolarPower Europe said the EU Solar Standard “puts the power in citizens’ hands and will enshrine the energy transition into the places where we sleep, work, and live”. Where did he get the idea that this EU law "puts the power in citizens’ hands"? By definition when it's mandatory it's not a choice, it's not a power, it's merely forcing people to shift their depency from a direct energy producer (oil, coal, nuclear) to corporations that build devices to gather the energy locally. Have some more. >“As the grid catches up to the energy transition, installing energy generation where we use energy will also help the grid, by keeping electricity local and empowering citizens with the information and technical ability to use electricity smartly,” he explained. First, the grid didn't need help. Outside of blatant economical sabotage, the grid was doing well in furnishing power to all citizens and companies. Second, he comes back at the idea that having a local electricity (magical term that autowins a debate before it even started) is "empowering citizens" and their respective brains to make good decision about how to know when they need to use electricity. It's gibberish. Whether electricity comes from a global power line or shines from the office's roof, it's still electricty and it's nowhere changing anything about a building's needs. When these hyenas imply that people will then learn to use electricity in a better way it's just them telling us that it's going to be even more regulated and constrained, because whether the juice comes from the roof or the ground makes no difference at all. >“They can see when they are generating more electricity and can adjust their consumption accordingly.” This is utterly retarded. A company needs a given amount of electricity, period. It's not going to use more just because it suddenly gathers more solar electricity. At best you would actually resell the surplus and thus make money. That would be a smart thing to do. But it would hurt the margins of some corporations. This corpol nonsense only begins to coalesce into a form of logic when you realize that it means y'all will be forced to use much less electricity and will only be allowed to power more things when you'll have an extra output on a sunny day, because that's the only way you can bring people to have to micro-manage the consumption. As a reminder, we still are stockpiling used panels into landfills, with no end in sight. Energy transition. Supposedly more ecological.

>>92138 europe is also just not a great place for solar power. I wonder how much this project will cost per kWh vs lets say putting in a few newclear plants.

>>92137 >people cant fight it its cause they outlaw competition not cause its financially not viable. EU made it straight illegal to plant and sell old crops. There is still a brave resistance who preserves old crops at personal risk but the avg person doesn't even know how their food declined. You will get repeatedly told about how increasing food supply with hybridization saved the world from starvation but they never tell you the reduction in nutritional value and how they are banning the old crops. I think they are intentionally raising dumber people by ensuring malnutrition.

>>92142 Dumber and weaker. Then poisonous crops and then mRNA crops which are even worse. I think I hate humanity.

>>91183 >Not if you want scientific and technological breakthroughs and advancement of the human species so they actually don't need to pollute as much and burn anything they can get their hands on just to stay warm in the winter. bro we have solar power we don't need to go back to wood fires >Start with yourself. i am, i'm not having children >Yes but it's not scalable. That's the entire issue here. why does it need to be scalable if we're scaling back the population????? >You first need to get people into a position where it even makes sense for them to even think about a future worth sustaining. yeah that's why i'm a socialist >But wanting them all dead and extinct is not it. bro what are you talking about

>>92146 fuarrrk >>92103 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

>>92146 anti natalism is not a solution to the problem and its only justifications are spiritual. people are going to have kids, like it or not, and you don't remove yourself from responsibility through holier-than-though declarations that you aren't having children. especially not when it's simply a rational decision to make in any developed society: by not having kids, you have much more free time and resources to dedicate towards the things you seem to care about. im not demanding you do anything but think about it.

>>91991 >I am curious where your estimate comes from if there's no idea where the money went anyways The government knows how much money went into the pentagon. The pentagon can't explain where lots of that money was actually spent. There is no need to estimate anything. >That is not my argument and I would like it if you didn't attack strawmen in front of me. >nobody is saying this partner, you might want to work on your reading comprehension This is the part where a good faith participant would elaborate and clarify what they meant instead of throwing ad hominems over your shoulder while you try to run away from the discussion on your high horse. >even the pentagon is spending money on global warming research that means it must be legit The pentagon spent $1300 on a coffee cup. This is evidence of nothing except how wasteful and corrupt government spending is. >>91996 >Prices are not determined by demand directly but whatever is decided by the private businesses and what people do manage to pay for. Without government initiatives to develop nuclear there wouldn't even be nuclear energy as an option to begin with because it was never seen as profitable. Nuclear is not unprofitable in china or india where they are building them as fast as they can. The reason nuclear is expensive in the west is because government regulations make it expensive. Government regulations make it expensive because oil companies want to keep there energy monopoly. Nothing you said refutes that. >You do realize Ayn Rand was a fangirl of a serial killer, right? Is that how you evaluate information? Everything is true or false depending on how much you like the person who said it? That is a dangerously ignorant mentality. >Also they are not even in direct competition. Nuclear is the only thing that can demolish long term profits for the oil companies. That's why they lobby so hard against nuclear in the arenas of politics and public opinion. >You arent going to be driving around nuclear cars any time soon Where do you think EVs get their power from? >>92015 >We get back to corps sucking the life out of nations. It's the government that is centralizing economic and political power upwards and away from the people. The government is the one that steals 40% of your paycheck and locks you in a cage if you break one of their thousands of petty rules. Everytime you see an advertisement just remember that is a private company begging you to give them money. They have no power over you. Government doesn't beg you to pay taxes, they send thugs with guns to your house if you don't pay. People villainize private companies and glorify the state because they are cowards who are scared to stand up to real power. >That's Cyberpunk 101 Cyberpunk 101 would be energy is basically free because nobody can stop you running a mininuke in your garage, you keep 100% of what you earn (no taxes or inflation) and you can spend your money on whatever you want.

>>92146 >bro we have solar power we don't need to go back to wood fires What we have is a global and very complex but also shockingly fragile supply chain. One that's endangered by demographic collapse that is looming on the horizon for most of the developed nations. From large scale mining operations for rare earths to specialized manufacturing plants with a wealth of institutional knowledge and then logistics to distribute all those panels to other countries. You don't even seem to understand all the people that are involved and needed to sustain all of this. And with them gone, that's gone too. All you're left with is the few panels that are still operational but waiting to break down and some white papers that on their own really aren't worth much. We need all the scientists we can get to figure out how to optimize existing processes and innovate new ones. And then we need a massive army of people to actually put that into action. So unless you are talking of eugenics or cutting aid to Africa, you simply don't know what you're talking about. >i am, i'm not having children Thank you for keeping your loser genes from the pool. >why does it need to be scalable if we're scaling back the population????? You really should start practicing your second order thinking skills. Chances are you won't even be able to live like the Amish. You will still be dependent on the grid somehow. Producing solar panels is a large scale operation. But without other people you won't even be able to have propane or diesel. Infrastructure doesn't run itself, neither do groceries just magically spawn on the store shelf. >yeah that's why i'm a socialist Lmao, socialist systems and policies are one of the greatest causes for hopelessness and despair. And the crushing of the human spirit. I don't care if your hip college prof told you it would work this time only if implemented correctly for once. Reality is that it leads to suffering, stagnation and pollution. It's enslavement of entire populations. "Capitalism" is like kicking dead whales down the beach but socialism is death. You're just too pampered by first world comforts and possibly also too young to understand yet. Even from just personal experience, people from socialist places tend to be the most materialistic because they grew up having to worry about bare essentials. There's no time to think about stuff like animal welfare if there ain't even enough food on the table. From my observations they also tend to care about the environment much less than the average middle class european who did get to enjoy a far less oppressive and with that more economically prosperous environment. One where they were able to worry about less immediately impactful topics to their lives as opposed to easterners who were more preoccupied with base survival. >bro what are you talking about How else do you get less people if not by death or extinction? I see why you think that Marx wasn't just autistic ramblings of a lazy slob. While I have my own critiques with the Austrian school of econ, I now understand why Milton had to explain how a pencil was made like it's to a bunch of retarded children. Because in a way he was. tl;dr without other people you would be dead in a week tops. >>92147 Are you having an aneurysm? should someone call an ambulance? >>92171 Holy hell is this for real? Please tell me this is a shoop haha! 35C was a sunny late summer day 20 years ago and they make 29C look like hot lava in hell. There's a reason I don't watch the news any more but that also means I can't verify this pure insanity.

>>92171 >The government knows how much money went into the pentagon. are you "the government?" the budget is relatively open, its true, but there is also a number of budget items which are deliberately vague or completely undisclosed. actually working out the total amount that goes in takes considerable effort, as "the government" is a much, much more complicated beast than you make it out to be. >This is the part where a good faith participant would elaborate and clarify what they meant good faith is earned. in your case you have not shown a desire to treat me in good faith so i do not know why i should continue providing you with the effort, when all you will do is refuse with all your might to think. but since you ask so nicely, my argument was a reply specifically meant for the argument in >>91919 , which looking back on now i maybe should have just reported as it also contains nothing of substance. So pardon my rudeness, it's just that I already made it abundantly clear to you that I was talking about wargames more broadly as (1) established in the cybersecurity domain (as an easy access point for laymen) and (2) only one among a variety of ways that the ecological, sociological, geographic, strategic consequences of global warming as they occurred over the past 20 years were taken seriously, not simply by US military operations but certainly by other governments and corporations. in fact, some other organizations who knew exactly what was going on include the exxon mobil corporation, who funded the mainstream, critical climate science and whos predictions of global warming and the destruction it caused were considered "highly accurate" for their time period. and given the date on all of these things we're not talking hypothetical future scenarios, it's soykaf that already happened and how the government responded. It is also no secret that other, closely related issues - like the scarcity and distribution of resources - have been cause and a major strategic consideration, if not *the* strategic consideration of modern warfare, certainly characteristic of it for the past half-century: every middle eastern involvement of the united states was a resource war. you need to come to terms with this reality because i can guarantee you that your enemies already have, your politicians already have too and so have the ones you thought were your allies. and I'm terribly sorry you had to find out this way.

>>92172 Why would you respond to someone who follows the 4chan template of >specific quote lazy one liner sentence >specific quote lazy one liner sentence etc.? Those kinds of people are so worthless, I think they don't even believe the things they say/write. They are a hollow bucket which arbitrary opinions are poured into without care, and they spit it back out. I have a better idea for how we can generate power. Install thirty million exercise bikes in America with a generator attached to them, and mandate that obese people must ride them. There is a great opportunity to transmute fat Americans into energy.

>>92201 you make a good point. there's also the fact that these tactics are discussed at length in https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm >Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION' >Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator. >6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

>>92203 >wow someone mentioned something outside of the topic, now I'm going to make a big post about the idea of making posts outside of the topic. this is interesting stuff! lol--literally >>92182 > there is also a number of budget items which are deliberately vague or completely undisclosed if this were a monarchy then OK fine, don't disclose but to the King. But in theory we are a republic and the military serves the president. Does Trump know where all this money went ? If a congressman (who is responsible for the budget) wants to know, can he learn where this money goes ? I have the notion the answer is 'No' more often than it should be. And I the citizen, how am supposed to be an informed voter stewarding all this stuff, how am I supposed to evaluate what is going on to make my small decisions intelligently when so much information is hidden from me?

>>92203 Those were the good old time, now they have AI's for that. Nobody is going to pay to get thread derailleur on lainchan. The guy in question is probably just a guy who wanted to answer specific points, however.

>>92171 >It's the government that is centralizing economic and political power upwards and away from the people. Governments by now are totally lobbied and bought by the highest bidder. A lot of the money they take from people is then given to private groups through preferential deals and countless subsides we never had a chance to regulate properly. >Everytime you see an advertisement just remember that is a private company begging you to give them money. Not all companies with power need to advertise for their goods. Many run on services that do not concern the rabble. >People villainize private companies and glorify the state because they are cowards who are scared to stand up to real power. Have you tried thinking that both could be culprits? >Cyberpunk 101 would be energy is basically free because nobody can stop you running a mininuke in your garage, you keep 100% of what you earn (no taxes or inflation) and you can spend your money on whatever you want. The basic tenet of cyberpunk is that the governments are puppets, so they'd do what is profitable to the corporations, rigging the markets and pushing taxes where they hurt the competition. In all logic they would massively invest in medias in order to shape the minds of people, which in turn would put spineless politicians into a precarious position where they'd have no choice but go with the idea that's cultivated in the soil represented by the population, seeded by the corporations. A government would gain nothing by destroying the very economy it depends on, as it would have no reason to antagonize the population in a democratic system. Yet year after year we see this happening more and more, with blatant sabotage of various industries and economy sectors (energy, health, education, etc.) under the pretense of these politicians being dumb and clueless as a way to explain what should be mistakes, but which so often end filling the pockets of very large companies. >>92172 >We need all the scientists we can get to figure out how to optimize existing processes and innovate new ones. Or IA? >neither do groceries just magically spawn on the store shelf. Those are rather easy to grow on your own, and with a knack for alternative fuels, assuming you had enough crops, you could even have your own bio fuel for a very small scale usage. >How else do you get less people if not by death or extinction? Sterilization. People don't die but cannot reproduce. >>92182 >there is also a number of budget items which are deliberately vague or completely undisclosed. Let's not even talk about the CIA's black budgets, too busy toppling undisciplined foreign governments and ruining economies and populations with drug smuggling. > which looking back on now i maybe should have just reported as it also contains nothing of substance. Who the hell do you think you are? Are your posts valuable too? We've also seen much worse over the course of over two threads so chill. >very middle eastern involvement of the united states was a resource war. All wars are resource wars, be it faith, land, copper, gold, women, oil or any other stuff. >>92201 >I have a better idea for how we can generate power. Install thirty million exercise bikes in America with a generator attached to them, and mandate that obese people must ride them. There is a great opportunity to transmute fat Americans into energy. It's not durable if you don't keep people obese. You must have a turnover where the people who get fit must then be incentivized to accumulate fat again with coupons and other rewards coupled to greasy food and many other treats. >>92203 I'm more concerned about mods deleted threads than a thread being temporarily diluted. Going off-topic isn't a crime either and we've strayed far from the original and unrewarding topic of solarpunk for which few people seem to care. >>92204 Trillions became impossible to backtrace on 9/11 with WTC7's destruction. The information is likely forever lost.

>>92229 >Governments by now are totally lobbied and bought by the highest bidder. if that was the case you'd think there'd be more efficiency and uniformity of action. In a place like the US you have a bunch of people in government who are all bought to some degree by several different interest groups and is getting tugged back and forth and left and right by each of them, plus party loyalty, plus maybe even an actual opinion or two. And when some contentious issue comes up all of those who think they own the politician in question come in to collect, but he can only vote one way. > In all logic they would massively invest in medias in order to shape the minds of people, which in turn would put spineless politicians into a precarious position where they'd have no choice but go with........ Why not just get around having to deal with the democracy stuff altogether. Forget the voters, own the bureaucracy, own the politicians (both sides ideally) or better yet just own the power directly and let the state pretend it calls the shots.

>>92204 >does trump know where the money went >does a congressman know >can I know no of course not, and I never stated otherwise. you seem a bit confused about my position here: i am under no illusion the government is on our side, in fact at no point did i say the black budget, fraud, excess lenience and overall lack of transparency (4 different, connected issues) were in any way justified. but if you want me to take the bait, the president knows better than anyone else and is the most capable of creating an audit at this point. unfortunately we've seen that pretend to happen, repeatedly, and it went horribly. the reality is that none of our politicians give a real enough soykaf to do that audit. here's a funny headline from the year attached video was rolled out. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-jun-13-la-fg-missing-billions-20110613-story.html >>92229 >the basic tenent of cyberpunk is that governments are the puppets this has to be one of my bigger pet peeves around this kind of conversation. cyberpunk isn't a philosophy, its a fiction genre marked by subversion of certain cyberpunk genre conventions, and a cultural movement based around these aesthetics, DIY hacking and whatnot. the idea that a scene like this all just emerges from a certain cultural thesis is shortsighted to say the least. >Who the hell do you think you are? Are your posts valuable too? im simply making an attempt to follow the rules and stick to the thread topic instead of dragging another thread to soykaf simply because the topic infuriates me. >All wars are resource wars, be it faith, land, copper, gold, women, oil or any other stuff. very true anon >>>92226 >Nobody is going to pay to get thread derailleur on lainchan. you'd be surprised honestly. I've seen how these things work, its a lot less glowies at a desk job and a lot more volunteers petitioning questionable NGOs to pay them to soykafpost on their favorite forums. >The guy in question is probably just a guy who wanted to answer specific points, however. he could have tried a hell of a lot harder at it. the problem is that the well was already poisoned, such that "gossip mode" can now be aggressively pushed as normal board culture during any raid by chumps who are too new to know better. very easy to maintain a disinfo atmosphere in these circumstances.

>>92234 >Why not just get around having to deal with the democracy stuff altogether. Forget the voters, own the bureaucracy, own the politicians (both sides ideally) or better yet just own the power directly and let the state pretend it calls the shots. That's a good question. Now that they don't own the social medias anymore, and that IDpol don't automatically win them votes anymore, we can expect a change in the way they proceed. ...to defend democracy, obviously. >>92236 Democracies can not cure their addiction to public spending. You may think a savior may fall from the sky to save your country, but Canada had one, and look where it got them. When Harper hire top member of every corner of the administration in his own team learn how to cut every budget in 2, he saved Canada. At the next election, Canadians elected the guy who promised public money in exchange of votes. And don't forget that Harper have initially ballooned the budget, he tried to save his country eventually, but even he wasn't above the law of democracy: whoever borrow more money than the other win the election.

>>92241 >Democracies can not cure their addiction to public spending. this is a meme going around lately and I don't think its true. The problem is that you need a population with mutual interests and high conscientiousness and trust (both ability to give it to the worthy and to be worthy of it themselves). If you're the one congressman who says that you're not going to try to get funding into your district, then your district suffers to pay for everyone else's stuff and you're just a sucker. And your society has to be strongly enough policing of incompatible people that they never get enough power to just vote themselves money.

>>92241 >That's a good question. Now that they don't own the social medias anymore, and that IDpol don't automatically win them votes anymore, we can expect a The response should be obvious: censor internet to control narrative. You can already see it with britbongs jailing people for complaining about rapists on twitter. And sweden censors crime news for swedes - years ago i saw swedish side would censor crime news if you used a swedish vpn. So they hide domestic crime from their own people while pretending to report about it to foreigners.

>>92243 >The problem is that you need a population with mutual interests and high conscientiousness and trust You are at the bargain stage. Almost there. You can have an unified population and the most important divider might be how everyone want to improve the common situation, but this situation is exceptional and can not be anything but ephemeral. Clientelism is the destiny of democracies, ancient, modern and futures. I am part of this group, therefor, I will vote for the candidate who will improve the situation of my group. Whatever the cost may be to groups my group isn't allied with or the common thing isn't my problem. Open your eyes, half of the people in every western country want their country to burn. Do you think they will vote against free money at the low cost of burning the country? >>92244 Bongs have been doing that for two decades. If we hide the genocidal scale of rape from one community, then intercultural relations will improve. They had the hubris to think that they could stop people from talking to each other. They could have saved intercultural relationships at the low cost of about 100 pedos being jailed, but no. I was there for the Sweden thing too. I don't know if they still do it but the only way to still get news about your country, whichever it is, is to read the propaganda of countries who hate yours. After Elon bought Twitter, the EU tried to ban it in Europe. Free circulation of ideas is very dangerous for OUR democracy.

>>92246 almost where ? I gave some requirements to achieve to get it to work. I didn't detail how you'd get those requirements met but its obviously going to take a massive amount of exclusion and or genocide and or eugenics etc etc to get there. >They could have saved intercultural relationships at the low cost of about 100 pedos being jailed, but no. IDK some of the stories I read out of Once-Great Britain make it seem rather the case that its a lot more than 100 rapists and a thousand times as many who will cover for them. This isn't the case that the bottom ~1% of these foreign populations is really bad, but the rest are pretty great or at least alright, its a large population a slender margin of which is even capable of maintaining a government of the type present in Britain were it of their own country and their own people.

>>92253 You have the foreign pedo rapists from below, and the systemic pedo rapists from the elite, above. Normal honest people are stuck between both. Also that thread is definitely drifting way too far from the original topic.

>>92234 >if that was the case you'd think there'd be more efficiency and uniformity of action. In a place like the US you have a bunch of people in government who are all bought to some degree by several different interest groups and is getting tugged back and forth and left and right by each of them, plus party loyalty, plus maybe even an actual opinion or two. And when some contentious issue comes up all of those who think they own the politician in question come in to collect, but he can only vote one way. You completely sidetrack the fact that even the highest bidder has to manage a mosaic of opinions in order to control the entire political spectrum that it contributed to create through democracy, which is a highly divisive governmental system. >Why not just get around having to deal with the democracy stuff altogether. Because democracy is an efficient tool to control the masses and lie to them by making them believe they can shape their own destiny. It's making masses believe that they have far more power than they will ever possess beyond eventually popular discontent. But in the end the masses always look for people to follow. The universal voting organ inserts itself here by creating such candidates out of nothing while controlling everything through capital by investing in academies, science, medias and political centers of varying types, from the more obscure to the most prestigious. The proper way to read democracy is to look at what all parties agree on. For the USA for example, one of the common principles is the blind defense of the dollar through foreign wars while pushing with the C.I.A. and N.S.A., and through the embassies, subversive programs to weaken or destroy nations from within through cultural and demographic wars. Thus nobody can oppose the USA. But the country is dying because it forgot not to apply to itself what it does to others. What is undeniable is that defenses against corporations are evaporating year on year while said commercial organizations accrue vast amount of wealth siphoned from the public treasure and the people's pockets. It's an auto-domestic predatory behavior and this cannot go on forever because the pool of wealth to drain is reaching very low levels. The business is kíng, its interests more valued than those of the people who must partake in the great business religion and its domestic product iconography. There is nothing left but money and those who manage this resource in large quantities, even to the point of producing it, own everything else. Nations today, bare a few exceptions, do not even control their own monetary production. Private groups do in more or less veiled ways. The entire corporation encroachment relies on the control of money and of the masses. It's unmistakably paгasitic in nature. >Forget the voters, own the bureaucracy, own the politicians (both sides ideally) or better yet just own the power directly and let the state pretend it calls the shots. This could happen, but democracy has been elevated to a highly revered religious status. However I think only the older population still care a lot about this system that much, it's a ь∞mer thing. A lot of young people seem to not care anymore if not downright hating it, but by how much is a good question, although revolutions don't usually need more than a tenth of very motivated and organized people to take over an entire country no matter the size. See Russia.

>>92319 >Also that thread is definitely drifting way too far from the original topic. I have to disagree. The essence of solarpunk is the wet dream of progressive. It's the paradise on earth after the revelation, the shining days after the great evening, it's the endgame. Look at any picture of solarpunk, it have a taste of USSR propaganda but instead of worshiping dad Stalin, it worship "science", net 0, anti cars, antiwork, post sarity, multiculti, the complete work. Talking about the reality of applying this ideas and how it's done isn't offtopic.

https://youtu.be/KWsTEoVrlf4 > one of the leading US teachers who escaped America due to political leanings after publishing in journals like New Yorker and Guardian to write sci-fi, publish in-depth sci-fi analysis and read the Dune. Don’t forget Damien Walter. he’s amazing :)

>>92355 >and read the Dune. what if this video is interesting tell us some good extracts from it I have no idea who damien walter is so I've never forgotten him

This area of ideology is something I've thought a lot about and I always find myself wishing there was something close to it, but separate. Excuse me while I try to get my thoughts out of my head. Solarpunk's image is very post-scarcity luxury communism with a green paint job, and that focus on image over substance detracts from the useful parts of the ideology. I would even say that the imagery itself is _too_ powerful such that the actual goals and values in the ideology become muddled and less important than the image. I have a background in tech and house building. Although my paid carpentry work has only been in regular commercial home building, one of my big interests is in natural building, particularly with lime aggregates and very local materials. Examples are hempcrete infilled timberframes, and cordwood buildings. The natural building scene is pretty old at this point. Most of the big names are people from the hippie generation. Those who went off-grid in the 60s and 70s and stayed off grid ever since. I argue that there is a straight line connecting _some_ of those values of the natural building community with the values of those who are drawn to solar punk for reasons beyond the aesthetic. Consider that both ideologies have a core tenet of sufficiency. I would argue that the natural builders are more about self-sufficiency or the sufficiency of a small group, while solarpunk either glosses over where the sufficiency comes from, or is about the sufficiency of a society as a whole. Solarpunk leaves out the dirty parts of actually living close to the earth. There's not enough focus on labour imo, and not enough focus on resource usage and extraction. In my area there is a large living history museum called Kings Landing Historical Settlement. It's a reconstruction of a typical small Canadian village in the 1800s, including functional farms and historical actors. It's a popular site for elementary school field trips. However having spent a weekend there this last year I was surprised to find it very redpilling. If you know much about local history, the museum is complete enough that you can imagine it without the veneer of a museum, and really feel what we're missing now as far as close-knit communities go. For me it's been a bit of a mind worm and I have spent some time with the thought experiment of starting from this historical settlement, and adding just enough of the modern world that we benefit from it. For me this is what the solarpunk ideology should be, although I doubt the ideology can really escape its powerful visuals without a rebrand. Through experimentation and sharing of information we've improved the meta for shelter and agriculture these past 200 years. We can slot those improvements into typical self-sufficient villages from 200 years ago and end up with a living situation that is far more human than what we have now. There are things that can and have to be done on small and medium levels for this to occur: - there needs to be more interest in natural buildings, and the interest needs to come from outside of the aging natural building communities - management of human waste needs to be looked at on a very local level -- as in a household level, with secondary processing in the vicinity. There are existing technologies that are better than humanure and other so-called composting toilets. As an example there are some newer research papers on hydrated lime dehydrating toilets that look promising. - municipal and regional councils need to allow for experimental and/or traditional dwellings in a way that allows for code variances. Nova Scotia already does this very well and their program should be looked to as an example to copy. The following link contains some examples of where natural buildings would come against the code https://snbsc-planning.com/cct/non-traditional-building/ - Agriculture is not my specialty but I know there's plenty of work to be done here as well. People 200 years ago had a very limited diet compared to us, and it was very seasonal. Opponents of this new ideology would claim that returning to that would mean eating potatoes every day, but the truth would be something in between that and what we have today. An emphasis on very local foods, a focus on seasonal foods and preservation. But we also now have the technology and knowledge to do a little better than buckwheat and potatoes every day. I'd like to ask what other people think we can do on an individual level? These discussions usually tend towards imagining a perfect commune of like-minded people but I'd rather think about the individual and specific interests. One anon soykafting into a bucket of lime for a year and sharing their progress can have an impact when it comes to something like this.

>>92367 I would like to add that one of the main things needed to make this route of living viable is abandoning country-wide electricity grids by using very little power. Home design should be the biggest concern when it comes to heating and cooling. If you consider electricity needed without concern for home heating and cooling, it becomes very reasonable. Especially if you are using modern low-power computers and monitors. Think of your kWh in a small dwelling starting with a low-wattage laptop and a chest freezer converted to run as a fridge. Increase from there as needed and you will find your full solar / battery setup will quite affordable. By my math you can be quite comfortable with a few thousand dollars on your setup if you DIY (assuming a well designed 600sqft living space), and that's in Canada with long winters.

>>92330 that's not what you were doing, and you know it >solarpunk represents woke values I associate it with this isn't set in stone and you need to argue your case *in good faith* as to why it relates to those things. you don't do this, in fact you skip over the questions completely and proceed to talk about the same slop topics that people with explicitly antagonistic goals to site staff push in every single thread. you try to derail the thread like you (or someone just like u, idrc at this point) do most others and claim it's only natural that you do so, as if you had a devine right to do so. i would agree that "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all" is an imperfect policy when you feel there's a meaningful critique to be made, but see the thing is you need to actually make that meaningful critique and you need to respect others desires to still talk about it after you've said your piece, instead you aggressively derail the thread and soykaf on anyone who wants to discuss the topic in question. fuarrrk off.

>>92367 >there needs to be more interest in natural buildings, and the interest needs to come from outside of the aging natural building communities can you elaborate a bit on what natural buildings are ? Are we talking earth ships and strawbale houses type things? >human waste this is typically already processed fairly locally, but not in-your-house level surely. Obviously this can tie into agriculture >we also now have the technology that technology has been had since time immemorial, disrupted by occasional famines and disasters. Trade with far off countries for spices and such is truly ancient, and some degree of livestock is practically free in many places. All this stuff ranges massively of course by region. the nitpicker in me craves a chance to point out that potatos are american and no one eats american buckwheat so potatos and buckwheat as a diet are a very new option >>92368 Depending what we're actually optimizing for, I think you should ask the question of to what degree are heating and cooling required ? I think there's a strong argument for some degree of it but very possible you can cut back on this

>>92371 I like the question of 'what are we optimizing for' because it made me think that the 'why' of these ideologies isn't well defined enough, but people walk into these discussions with a 'why' already formed to some extent. For me that 'why' is that the system needs a new iteration, almost from scratch. Something like "let's take the good things we've been doing, but really rethink everything from the ground-up about how we live". I think the bottom line in these ideologies is a dissatisfaction with the current system to the point where the there's an ask for a replacement system, but beyond that the specifics are vague. In thinking about building neighbourhoods and villages for X number of people (for an optimal X as well), I think we can land somewhere that is more than just masturbating about solar panels and communes. Buckwheat and potatoes were chosen just because they were staple crops in my region in the 1700-1800s. And yes those are examples of natural buildings. It's not a well-defined term. For instance I personally dislike a lot of earthship practices and don't think they should be lumped in with natural buildings -- things like burying used tires or other garbage. Generally natural building just means using building materials that will break down on their own. So no or very little plastics or resins. Sometimes it also means no concrete but that depends on who you're talking to. Often they also use very local materials. For example a timber frame made with trees from the property the house is built upon, and infill substrate also from local clay and sand etc... What's your opinion on these discussions by the way? Any merit in the 'solarpunk' thing outside of the nice pictures?

>>92355 >>92365 The first two dozen seconds sounded like pure random word salad. It was a quotation. He sounds like saying solopunk. It's a long winded talk too. He mentions the instagram solarpunk group, how it's the first native art form for that platform. The whole podcast is extremely wasteful and superficial, naive and nothing more than a repeat of the usual communist selling points, all with their contradictions. He fawns over the organic soykaf covering the gigabuildings, the curvaceous tribal tatoos, or even dropping back to the use of pre-industrial clothings and subdued brown and autumnal dyes, which ironically excludes the blue hair crowd and he says it longs for a return to the sustainable indigenous lifestyles, in respect of indigenous cultures, but at the same time praises the social justice, the equality and a future money-less society, so within this decidedly hardcore leftist framework the indigenous concept just means whatever has been imported in your country as a new beached boats of culture. Pretty sure that it would not be for example an indigenous Japanese culture free of foreign elements, with a social justice veering into nationalism. Communism has historically been very opposed to tradition and ancestral preservation, and stood against any strong political group that claimed to protect all aspects of a people's culture, identity, faith and legacy. I wouldn't expect anything better coming from a journo who got slots in some of the most mainstream liberal media mouthpieces you could think of. Twenty and one minutes into the video, long after saying that it doesn't have its own Neuromancer although solarpunkists and trying to recycle whatever they can put their hands on into their makefit genre, he goes on to cite a would-be organic manifesto of what solarpunk is and it's just trite as it can get: "An aesthetic and political movement, blah blah blah late-stage capitalism, blah blah blah clean energies solar and wind power..." And more talk about removal of property rights and a return to a collectivist sharing of this and that. I stopped there and deleted the video because there just nothing ground breaking to what that has already been covered and exposed many times over, in much better ways, in this thread series. Better spend your time reading this for example: https://solarpunkstation.com/2024/10/17/solarpunk-and-cars/ Or how solar panels may be recycled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4rXLWBVTrI It can be done, but the cost of recycling never enters the equation and politicians always obfuscate this regardless of what country you live in. https://www.okonrecycling.com/renewables-recycling/solar-panel-recycling/solar-panel-recycling-cost/ >Logistics and Transportation >Logistics is a primary cost factor in solar panel recycling. The geographic distribution of decommissioned panels and their distance from recycling facilities can significantly affect expenses. According to industry data, transportation costs range from $1,000 to $2,000 per container, with each container holding 300 to 500 panels. >Collection costs also play a significant role, varying from $0.05 to $0.25 per watt depending on factors like site accessibility and the number of panels processed. For large-scale operations, optimizing transportation networks is key to reducing costs and improving overall recycling efficiency. >Establishing comprehensive collection infrastructure is particularly challenging for small-scale recycling operations. Many facilities require minimum waste volumes of 4,000 tons annually to remain profitable, creating barriers for individual homeowners and small businesses seeking recycling solutions. Fact is, we don't need anything like "solarpunk" to do the actual recycling that is begging to be completed, lest we are ready to appreciate the beautiful view of hills of PV panels and odd poisonous landfills conveniently forgotten somewhere in some nation's backyard, say some low tier country in Asia or Africa where it's convenient to dump these materials and pretend they never existed.

>>92368 Are you saying we should use fire again to heat ourselves up? We would be deforesting in large quantities because we are too many and we are not growing enough forests (we need vast crop areas), and TPTB would curb that anyway because of the goal of zero dioxide carbon and particle emissions. Yet these same idiots stand against nuclear which is the relatively cleanest form of power production per watt. >>92371 >Depending what we're actually optimizing for, I think you should ask the question of to what degree are heating and cooling required ? A lot can be saved by building with thick isolated walls or burying half of the house below ground, which works very well in summer too.

>>92365 Nigga I don’t know you why would I tell you about my favorite living sociologist / teacher / philosopher if you lazy as fuarrrk xD. Would just rather gatekeep him from ya I’m Good xD

>>92370 You know fully well that solarpunk isn't a genre appreciated by the drill baby drill or the freedom loving kind. It's created and bought by the very liberal kind and postscarity in an important aspect of the genre. It's also hostile to car culture and have a strong emphasis on the collective over the individual. Look at the cars, the few that exist are round and non offensive looking. For a reason. Solarpunk could be about the USA invading whichever country have just found some rare earth deposit because they have done a dictatorship, but it's not. It aggregate all the progressive values. And you can clearly see that it is made by urbanites who don't even know that plants need roots and to be under the sun. This is part of a culture, a culture that plague us with things like net 0 and I am one of those who have to suffer the consequences of those policies. I think it's important to also talk about what trying to obtain solarpunk in real life will do.

>>92374 Those houses will biodegrade before my death. Ecology is to build houses that will house your grand grand grand kids will little maintenance, not to continually produce slop even if it made of natural products. This is called consumerism. And don't forget why we made urb (cities) in the first place: to produce. We may have outsourced all our production jobs to China but it don't mean that our economy is sustainable. It's the opposite in fact.

>>92374 >For me that 'why' is that the system needs a new iteration, almost from scratch. Something like "let's take the good things we've been doing, but really rethink everything from the ground-up about how we live". fair enough >For instance I personally dislike a lot of earthship practices and don't think they should be lumped in with natural buildings -- things like burying used tires or other garbage. I guess my sense of it is that tires exist, not too much to do with them but bury them somewhere, if they can be used positively perhaps they ought to be. Maybe its not as natural as a haybale but its a fair practice so long as we have tires in abundance. (if we're just defining natural building then yeah ok) >local materials when possible reasonable, although recycled materials that have to be imported are in a sense local >what's your opinion on these discussions by the way? Any merit in the 'solarpunk' thing outside of the nice pictures? For the most part if feels vapid while brushing against several things that are interesting. This series of threads has spent a lot of time trying to even figure out what it means. To be fair, cyberpunk is similar, but for the most part no one is talking about cyberpunk as an aspirational vision of a great future, so much as a cool cynical fantasy. >>92383 >are you saying we should use fire first of all if you're talking about burning wood and a huge number of places already do this even in developed countries, most of my life in the first world my house was heated not insignificantly by wood fire. Even when not using wood combustion heaters are ime rather more common than electrical. Cooling is electrical. Second obviously what he's speaking about is no

>>92394 >you know full well that solarpunk isn't a genre appreciated by the drill baby drill or the freedom loving kind and so what if it's not appreciated? you sound offended, and im sorry if the thread topic offends you, but the point remains that aggressively derailing the thread because you don't like it ruins the quality of discussion on the board as a whole. besides, "drill baby drill" isn't a real kind of person (besides the one zionist millionaire who said it), its a campaign slogan that is being shoved down ur throat. the only difference is that you like it when this is shoved down your throat, you can't get enough of it in fact. this isn't speaking from experience as a someone whos never left the (inner) city my entire life, its from experience of someone who grew up in a southern state and have been all up and down the east coast. >Look at the cars, the few that exist are round and non offensive looking. For a reason. you are a retard.

>>92396 >To be fair, cyberpunk is similar lolno >first of all if you're talking about burning wood and a huge number of places already do this even in developed countries, most of my life in the first world my house was heated not insignificantly by wood fire. Most of the heating is through electricity and gas. Wake up. Wood prices are already going up too and you're lucky if you're in a country that hasn't already put some kind of anticarbon tax on it. Then you need to take into consideration the type of woods used. the faster it will grow the worse it will be in heat for pound.

>>92406 >lolno what I mean is just that they're both kinda vauge and hard to define. people on here have been arguing about what it means to be a cyberpunk or for something to be cyberpunk for years. >most of the heating is through electricity in gas yes I meant to include gas in 'combustion heat'. I live in America, basically every house I've ever looked at (maybe every?) has a gas furnace. Electricity....not so much. Its a secondary heat that's easy to stick into some new room if you build an addition on your house. >wood prices the thing about burning wood is that you can kinda get by with the garbage wood. They even have these things called pellet stoves which take whats basically processed sawdust. Short of stupid regulations (a real risk) I don't really forsee this going away all that soon.

>>92409 We can not heat the houses of 8 billions people with wood and even if we could the PM2.5 and the specific pollution it creates are going to kill millions of people every year because the larges cities will be bathed in a fog similar to the one in London at the height of the industrial age.

>>92409 >they're both kinda vauge and hard to define lolno For one, cyberpunk started with some real fiction books and grew its own very solid style, themes and overall principles, while its aesthetics sprouted from the creative minds of visionaries, true authors. Whether it has badly aged or not, it had its own identity and many people still appreciate it today. You get entire games dedicated to this genre. What does Solarpunk provide? It's unclear, nobody wants to play in a game where the main point is to install windmills and solar panels. It's a pseudo-genre that has no seminal work to look at and the entirety of its visual scope is basically a yogurt video ad. I've read countless articles, listened to videos and even that boring podcast from that mainstream journo and I know for a fact that there is literally nothing in this. It's so bad that scratching it a bit is enough to see that it's selling another radical cultural communist spinoff while using comfy pictures, abundant greenery and globo-compliant selling points as a Trojan horse for dupes. It tries so hard to make the audience think that any other political group isn't even into ecology, which is nonsense. For starters, if you want to bring real change, you need to attack the issue with the purest violence, eschewing any concern for the sensitivities of the modern crowd and its naive and simplistic worries. For that, I can wait and will only take solarpunkists seriously if they are willing to decrust their asses and read truly thought provoking radical material. https://archive.org/details/canlifeprevail/page/n3/mode/2up Am I saying I am in agreement with the content of that work? Perhaps not, but at least it's not afraid to throw one's vision beyond the horizon of our tepid certitudes. It goes where modern cities could be a thing of the past and where mass surveillance, technological enslavement and environmental damage may be solved with concise and focused proposals. We need to be willing to go there if we want to pretend we carry within ourselves the resolve to bring about uncompromising changes.

>>92434 Isn't that author the guy who said in all seriousness that we should nuke the damned cities to get rid of all illnesses or something? I mean ok we kinda spot in some form of solarpunk tendencies in some people that there's a bizarre desire to see society collapse although it's not limited to proponents of that genre, but the whole other side of the playing field wants on the contrary to transition to the better future without toppling everything. High technology needs an infrastructure, networks, organization and functional systems. Without even agreeing with solarpunk I have yet no desire to see the entire world burn, it's deeply retarded.

>>92412 Victorian era / industrial age smog was a weapon, it wasn't pollution. They burned vast forests & giant trees to make the surface uninhabitable, forcing the survivors underground into the vast cave & tunnel systems they controlled - seizing complete control of the earth.

>>92412 I strongly suspect the average proponent of solar punk is also a supporter of degrowth; we're not talking about 8billion pop, idk quite how many maybe 1bil or something

>>92488 >depop Lines up with Club of Rome's objectives iirc.

>>92488 High grade bureaucrats are all about degrowth too, even if it means destroying our industries while letting China and other rising countries reinforce theirs. All of which is argued in favor of not hurting the planet, this when China has over a thousand garbage burning power plants and is actually running out of said garbage as it would seem if we were to listen to the latest claims on the interwebs. All of which obviously release no harmful particles because for some reason the Chinese have created garbage burning technologies that are super clean and the other first world nations were just too dumb to be capable of coming up with such clever ideas.

>>92611 >High grade bureaucrats are all about degrowth too, even if it means destroying our industries while letting China and other rising countries reinforce theirs of course they are: nationalism is inherently degrowth. nationalists will tell you that grinding the GDP and production down "temporarily" through geopolitical suicide is necessary. in reality, they dont really care about technology or access to resources, they just want to give their buddies government contracts.

>>92625 >nationalists You're not paying attention. Bureaucrats are all but nationalists, they're usually the staunchest globalists you could pick in a crowd. Nationalists want to protect their industries and markets.

>SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE >SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE >SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE >SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE >SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE Literally has to be SUSTAINABLE. What the fuarrrk does it even mean at this point? Killing economies, industries and livestock and eating disgusting bugs because the sun gets hotter and ice caps are melting until this naturally reverts? These people have decided they were right, no debates were held, no sources were compared. >inb4 Solarpunk 2030, the vidya game

>>92639 no, you're the one who's mot paying attention. "our" industries are not and never were ours to begin with, this is just as true whether those industries are led by Americans or not. if growth is the only thing you care about then you would want all networks to be shared with minimal friction. neoliberalism optimizes for gdp growth in the first world

>>92728 Yes, you are so clever. It's called our industries beause they are in our countries, paying taxes to our government, giving jobs to our citizens and if there is a war, they will produce for our side. If they are in China, guess what? Growth isn't in my plate, I don't care about it. Especialy world growth. Why do I care if the people in Brazil are paid more? Good for them, but if it is also bad for me, I oppose it. Now, his point was that the bureaucrats only care about their career and big money is going to give them a good career if they work against their country and for the big plans corpos have made for the world. Why would you say that nationalism is about degrowth? Every single nationalist I have ever heard of want a stronger economy. Look at the nationalists of your country, I bet they deny global warming because they want to focus on having more economical activities. Drill baby drill and all.

>>92728 You should know that "industries" means anything from small business to a still family owned large affair, and then the Fortune 500. Neoliberalism optimizes everything according to very short term strategies. You can look at Apple for example and see how their products have kept getting worse with each decade passing. Neoliberalism is also heavily obsessed about unhealthy racial and social policies for the sake of sticking to a mandatory narrative that is blind to obvious facts regarding who made the best working teams and when. Neolibs are totally engaged in thinly veiled heinous and traitorous processes which are decided by cdertain corp guys and other asset managers, not POTUS wannabes. I understand it can be confusing because it's made to be, we constant a constant barrage of contradictory statements and acts from politicians and company boards. Industrialists at large are not in control, they are not those who control the nation much, they are more like very important handlers of the machines and they try to make a lot of cash while submitting by themselves or doing so against their will to degrowth programs. I'm not trying to find them excuses, many of these industrialists are involved in the management of generous ledgers and saw no issue moving everything overseas, like Taiwan and later China, never truly uniting to ask for the government to put in place tariffs. Nevertheless, sellouts or not, these people still want to produce, and produce more if possible to make more money, hence why they accepted China's conditions. Their plan never was to sell less. And to wrap this up, nationalist industrialists have certainly no desire to sabotage their own assets. The only powerful and large group that has been engaged in degrowth operations despite their claims are politicians who are but puppets to higher forces whose rationale for such forced changes has nothing to do with money but competition on the geopolitical board. They are those supporting the development of all other countries but telling us to sacrifice our might and well being. This is nefarious and definitely acted according to the principles of a hidden war against entire populations and nations that are deemed problematic for those who look at us with disdain. They're past caring about making more money, they concentrate the meaningful industries in other places as much as they can while using degrowth as an excuse to force populations to accept the levying of more taxes and the inflated legal framework of regulations on private property for families and small businesses.

>>92777 >nationalistic rationalizations I don't actually care. you can't convince me to give a fuarrrk about which industries are "mine" or not so long as I have no actual saying power in how they're ran. anything that isn't democratization of the industries that play a role in my everyday life and survival is a lie, sold to us so that we participate in an economy that does nothing but sap our energy. change that and I'll start listening. >i don't care about growth this was my only point, that nationalism is inherently degrowth. I would go on to say that the recent anti-environmentalist turn of 21st century nationalism is a thoroughly modern invention too. you should care about conservation of your local ecosystem, you should care about smog, you should care about micro plastics and *aldehydes and you should certainly care about the consequences these things all have for the rest of the region. and what's more you should think about ghost acreage. >bureaucrats don't care they do, people don't pursue government work because they want power, fame, or lots of money. there are some real advantages but these tend not to come up until you're already thoroughly ensconced in the governmental complex, and they tend to do with having leave and job security so that they can enjoy the finer things in life. like having a family. bureaucrats are some of the most insufferably patriotic people I've ever met, and they actually happen to hate significant aspects of neoliberalism too: like >>92795 said, neoliberalism removes sovereignty from the government and gives it to corporations that would much rather outsource it to overseas. there is significant latent enthusiasm for renationalization within any bureaucrat who has had to witness the utter disaster that is public/private partnership of governance. >every single nationalist want a stronger economy want, yes, but when push comes to shove many would rather ignore the facts, revert to talking points, and even call science Jewish than accept that. you probably like this because you consider yourself on some level highly intelligent and ignorance useful, because the tribalistic conditions of a manufactured crisis will give you a continuous reassurance of safety and acceptance from people dumber than you. but if you're really so smart you should know better - you should be teaching your people to think for themselves. >nationalistic degrowth is when the global economy shrinks so the American economy can grow etc a lovely story, shame this isn't how things have been managed. if you'll remember your history, "drill baby drill" was first stated by Michael Steele: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Steele A centrist identifying as "fiscally conservative, socially inclusive" who believed that the iraq war should never have ended. he was opposed to Donald Trump and he stated in a speech in Israel that there was nothing more American than a Jewish homeland, in the same speech he stated that “I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation.” https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/137781 my point is simple: your nationalists, and your neoliberals, are not different groups. they are friends with each other. they go to each other's parties, they use the same talking points, and they overall have the same agenda. i will go even further and say neoliberalism has nationalism of its own and American economic interests at heart: the thought experiment is not one in which the world economy is built on the sacrifice of American interests, it is one in which Americans no longer work industrial jobs and instead do cushy work in things like product design, finance, offices that dont involve manual labor, while the dangerous work that is horrible for local populations and ecosystems is typically outsourced overseas. of course there are only so many such white collar jobs in our economy so everyone else is a defacto servant to these people. this arrangement has amounted to the United States having the highest gdp in the world, and the 7th highest per capita income which given its population size certainly says something important. the USD is powerful precisely because it can be used to buy things from overseas, manufactured goods and quality of life can generally be imported and small businesses can take advantage of global markets. In general, neoliberalism is committed, successfully, to maintaining the condition where USAmericans lead globally.

>>92802 >want, yes, but when push comes to shove many would rather ignore the facts, revert to talking points, if its not your country you dont want its government to be strong, as a nationalist. most nationalists I talk to are very unhappy with le main stream US government, cautiously happy about trump because he's the closest thing to a nationalist american president in a long time

>>92806 thats what im saying though. neoliberalism weakens pretty much every country except the USA. it is american soft power. nationalism being anti-neoliberal only really makes sense in places like europe, africa, asia, south america, russia especially; and there are some european nations that still benefit from it. anglos in the anglosphere by and large benefit from neoliberalism. if they've proven themselves in the free market, of course.

>>92807 you are not seeing it from the nationalist perspective. forget countries and governments, consider the situation from the perspective of extended families, this is what nations are. It is possible for a government/country to gain power while destroying the nation which founded it.

>>92808 that's not nationalism by the common definition of the term as it might be used in political theory or history books. for that matter i would say most nationalistists probably don't call themselves nationalist under that definition either, rather a fringe of white nationalists who do so. and there are even white nationalists who don't use that definition either. if an extended family was capable of holding political power for a long time, i would call them a dynasty. otherwise they are not even worth consideration, and its cope to say otherwise. the United States is quite young as a nation-state and basically doesn't share in any of the european dynasties, you can probably make some arguments about the establishment of central banks in the united states but i think central banking in the USA is a little more home-grown than that.

>>92802 >I don't actually care. you can't convince me to give a fuarrrk about which industries are "mine" or not so long as I have no actual saying power in how they're ran. anything that isn't democratization of the industries that play a role in my everyday life and survival is a lie, sold to us so that we participate in an economy that does nothing but sap our energy. change that and I'll start listening. That is a stupid point to make, you cannot control everything and it is normal that certain entities and power systems are allowed to run without you being privy to their inner workings, if only because you would not be qualified to have a say in this. You're acting like a petulant child who has a big idea of himself. A decent political system can give enough leeway to industries without needing to manage them down to each cog as long as they follow the law and the spirit of the constitutional powers of the nation. >this was my only point, that nationalism is inherently degrowth. I would go on to say that the recent anti-environmentalist turn of 21st century nationalism is a thoroughly modern invention too. you should care about conservation of your local ecosystem, you should care about smog, you should care about micro plastics and *aldehydes and you should certainly care about the consequences these things all have for the rest of the region. and what's more you should think about ghost acreage. No, degrowth goes far beyond the mere idea of changing industries so that they pollute less, it's a far ranging plan to dismantle these industries. For now the people I found these eco-radicals to come from the left for the most part as they have no desire to protect anything like a historical and carnal identity, they merely care about their current way of life, their well being and want to extend their model to whoever is receptive of it regardless of origins, so they tend to be very inclusive. You will find exceptions though such as V. Vikernes. >“I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation.” Are you using him as an example because I don't find such religious zealots to be very reliable and I'm not sure what the Hebrews are supposed to have brought to the world that many other nations didn't already possess in good fortunes and knowledge. >>92806 Right, but his favorite nation is somewhere else. Solarpunk attracts transgender people: https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/solarpunk-imagines-future-renewable-tech-socio-ecological-enlightenment/## >This kind of thinking kept me from coming out as transgender. Every time I had an intrusive thought about growing facial hair and passing as a boy, my self-blame returned. Maybe I wasn’t trying hard enough to be a girl; maybe I just needed to date boys and straighten my hair and shave my legs and wear makeup; maybe too, I needed to do more about the environment, protest more, organize more, do something more. I kept making up versions of myself. I only talked about environmental justice around my dad’s liberal friends. I only downplayed my femininity around my queer friends. >The one place where I escaped from this constant masking and shifting was in the books I consumed. Here's someone who "consumes" books. >At 17, I read Ursula LeGuin’s series of novels, the Hainish Cycle, for the first time. I was instantly drawn into the worlds she created, where gender was fluid, as in The Left Hand of Darkness, where some worlds grappled with climate disaster just as some had overcome it, as in The Dispossessed. The way she experimented with the utopian, which always included queerness and dissolved gender roles, was like nothing I had read or experienced. >Around this time, my friend Sim Kern asked if I wanted to start a climate fiction book club. We invited another BookTube friend, Wil, to join us in a rotation of monthly discussions. We were all trans, but this did not immediately strike me as significant. I was still toying with the concept of being nonbinary and using gender neutral pronouns, still uncertain about medical transition. The book Internet, meanwhile, had become a place for me to find a community that gave me a sense of security in my identity. I could not explain it yet, but I knew my trans and environmental fears were deeply intertwined. I cannot fathom how a genre that seems to cuddle a minority of a minority is ever going to grow popular. The more I read of this article the more I accept that this genre is dead on arrival. It has nothing to go for it, all the real world messages it espouses are literal fabrications by the very groups that cyberpunk was at least capable of identifying as dangerous and invasive. The genre is simply leaving no room for anyone not heavily immersed into hard leftist politics. So the only way to find something useful to say about it for now is to look for the alternative, for what would be a more open equivalent. Yes, in fact, for a more politically inclusive framework than this constrained failure of a genre. The difficulty of the task is considerably aggravated by the reality that more measured people seem to know that solarpunk is just a file folder with pretty pictures but with very contradictory themes barely united by a presence of green elements, nothing more. https://heyslick.substack.com/p/archeofuturism-the-secret-doctrine A critique of archeofuturism that unashamedly supports the existence of an urban elite and a modern farming population, straight from some French theorists you never heard of. Crafting a system of views that sew a mesh that will enthrall future generations into a neofeudalism. Solarpunk is the remedy. However things can get confusing when the way to this neofeudalism seems to rely on the falsities that are essential to the violent alterations brought to our societies. If climate change is a function of human activity, then aren't both solarpunk and archeofuturism agreeing? On the other hand if it's as illusory as disingenuous, doesn't that make solarpunk an intellectual pseudo artsy trap for fools? Yet I find this Novelle Droite to be just as insensitive and naive, and just as confusing for a supposed far-right containment fanfare that nevertheless claims to recycle the works of people who they would be most opposed to. But if at least it could get things moving and that big fat ball rolling. They say that a good story needs a good villain, but when that villain is not very convincing, what is left to salvage? I will admit to skimming the blog post because I primarily was looking for the purely ecological content which requires pushing the lecture to the moment the topic of mechanization is brought. More specifically, that of machines. Solarpunk maintains a very ambivalent position on this. One time it wants a bright future with lots of technology, other times it longs for a completely collapse of society that would nonetheless manage to recycle a certain residual presence of artificial assets to keep going through life, like a softened post-apocalypseism but with lots of trees and nice people all around, when reality would certainly make society so violent that we would all be thrown back into a traditional medieval context in which both communism and a vast collection of leftist ideas would either fade into irrelevancy or prove totally impossible to apply if only because they would be at odds with the new cultural values. Strike that: complete anathema to them. >In a way, Faye wrote what the modern Right lacked: a mythic future. His archeofuturism reads like Dune for European identitarians—collapse, filtered bloodlines, sacred war, and sovereign tech. Except where Dune imagines empire reborn from sand and spice, Faye dreams of Europa rising from the ashes—purified, militarized, and reborn in iron and silicon. More like Warhammer 40K. I would think that there is not much room for a preserved ecology there if that's the prevalent concept behind archeofuturism. Can't we just find a balance between the most leftist variant of solarpunk and the less absurd aspects of archeofuturism? Or are we doomed to play ping pong between Retardation Blue and Retardation Red? Ecology is barely addressed as it makes a timid appearance in chapter 2. Convergence of Catastrophes, under > Ecological devastation I wonder how much they deem it avoidable and whether it's social concerns or ecological ones that come first.

>>92841 an aside, but your chart seems weird. the categories make no sense. > you cannot control everything i never said i wanted to. > it is normal that certain entities and power systems are allowed to run without you being privy to their inner workings, if only because you would not be qualified to have a say in this there is a difference between having a say in, being listened to, and micromanaging something from on high. though an authoritarian man like yourself might not understand this, i just find it odd that you would trust the plan so readily. as for me, it is my belief that if an industrial process or activity has an externality, and i am affected by it, then i hold a stake in the process. history has shown that it is bad when this isn't realized. furthermore, it is not natural to work on something without knowing intimately how it works, and having an impact on how it continues to work moving forward. this can be realized cooperatively, or it can be realized destructively. >You will find exceptions though I wasn't aware that vikernes was also an environmentalist, but it makes sense. my familiarity is primarily with heidegger. you might find that environmentalism and ecology, albiet in many different flavors, is more broadly popular across the board than cryptorepublican line of the specific group chat you seem to be a part of. >degrowth goes far beyond the mere idea of changing industries so that they pollute less, it's a far ranging plan to dismantle these industries. you seem to know a lot about this topic for someone who seemingly is not a part of it. you seem to have strong opinions on whether it should or should not exist, in fact, without really being privy to its inner workings. funny thing, that. let's suppose you are right, though. could you give some possible examples of how a governmental authority might dismantle an industry? >political rationalization, pointing fingers elsewhere and where pray tell do these far left extremists originate. your nation, or a different one? >Are you using him as an example If you could read my post a little more thoroughly, you'll see that I'm very clear about what he is and his role in the situation. he is, or was, chair of the republican national convention, and he *coined the term* "drill baby drill" as a talking point of the republican establishment. The second part of your post seems to concern me, albeit it is very confused in doing so. the critique of archeofuturism is interesting link so thank you. i leave you with the same question you asked your friend.

>>92842 >an aside, but your chart seems weird. the categories make no sense. I posted this diagram in the hope of inciting some exchange of views but it's not mine. It's picked from a solarpunk page. The more I learn about it, the more it look to me to be nothing more than rebranded radical wokeism with an abundance of leaf covering blended to obnoxious "elite" talking points. I also came to be very disappointed of it. >i never said i wanted to. Perhaps but you're still trying to control too much in my opinion. There is definitely a lack of trust of the other one in your stance. >i just find it odd that you would trust the plan so readily Only if it's good and people and companies move together in the same direction. Beyond that I'm very partial to freedom of initiative and I have better things to do than really stand on a soapbox the height of an ivory tower to claim that I should have a right to control the nooks and crannies of any single industrial asset upon which I could put my gaze. Dedicated tasks by relevant people, and you have to trust people. But that requires a high trust society, which seldom exists today anyway as corruption is found everywhere. >it is my belief that if an industrial process or activity has an externality, and i am affected by it, then i hold a stake in the process. Vaguely, only distantly, because in the end we are all affected by many forces which are the fruit of human work. A society is exactly that, a mesh of interconnected and inter-influenced nodes of human activity. You can certainly demand of all elements of society to contribute to its betterment and protection. The problem is that you have no trust in anything outside of your invasive sight and control. There is a difference between having the right to know if a company that does some industrial business five kilometers up the road is not polluting the land, and what you described earlier on that really came of as highly control-freaky, especially the part about the mandatory democratization of the industries that play a role in your everyday life, which is the communist rationale to centralize everything in the supposed name of the people. I wonder who is the more authoritarian of us two really. >furthermore, it is not natural to work on something without knowing intimately how it works, and having an impact on how it continues to work moving forward. this can be realized cooperatively, or it can be realized destructively. Once again you will certainly not be qualified to scientifically know how a thing works intimately to properly assess the validity of the processes that run said thing. This is why experts are needed, but good ones, subservient to the public interest in truth, which is not exactly the case today. >I wasn't aware that vikernes was also an environmentalist, but it makes sense. His wife even believes that civilization makes people dumb. I would say that an excess of overarching organization does that and a fair amount of isolation, autarky and wilderness helps alleviate such a problem. They are not exactly totally off-grid but they try to isolate themselves as much as possible from the ills of society while maintaining some kind of connection. Said connection even went so far several years ago that Vikernes had a higher presence on social networks but after some issues he took some severe distance from such activities. Their focus is on permaculture and a lower-tech approach, as seen in his wife's videos. They do use a certain amount of modern technology so I guess you could see them as doing a kind of solarpunk but as far as I can tell they're an exception. Most of the people who go back to a greener and simpler lifestyle have thus far been urban liberal and leftists. >you might find that environmentalism and ecology, albiet in many different flavors, is more broadly popular across the board than cryptorepublican line of the specific group chat you seem to be a part of. If that is the case then you're saying it's definitely not limited to nationalists, who are right-wing. Or am I missing something here? >let's suppose you are right, though. could you give some possible examples of how a governmental authority might dismantle an industry? For starters, the rather well known case of France and her nuclear program for example. Or the complete halt on development of thermal engines for an electric obsession. The near total abandon of maritime biofuels. The reduction of healthy cattle food industries in favor of the production of insect-based proteins. NASA forfeiting research in reusable rockets, which is where Musk picked "his" idea from. Sometimes the degrowth of a country becomes the growth of another as we see lots of technical know-how and industrial assets moved overseas. Complement this with a litany of regulations and taxes that curtail and suffocate companies not powerful and large enough to survive. The only growth goes for large corporations that are not too much bound to a specific nation and to many things become far more abstract and immaterial as is the case with anything related to AI today. >and where pray tell do these far left extremists originate. You mean where they originate from? I can't answer this since it appears that you have reworded my statements. >If you could read my post a little more thoroughly, you'll see that I'm very clear about what he is and his role in the situation. he is, or was, chair of the republican national convention, and he *coined the term* "drill baby drill" as a talking point of the republican establishment. Right, so what then? What is the point to make next?

And if you were to look at the roots of solarpunk, the following summary would highlight the hypocrisy of the theme. https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/solarpunk Many solarpunkists think their ill-fated genre stands in opposition to the bleakness of cyberpunk as they pretend offering an alternative, but as you can see, the seminal literary sources are not following the principle of a smart transition while opposing Big Oil, they're all based on apocalypse, a dramatic destruction of the world, a near complete collapse of it. In particular Le Guin's works appear to be a thinly veiled excuse to sell a very preachy leftist belief regarding gender, totally forgetting that a physical collapse of society and modern comfort would likely eradicate such bourgeois lifestyles. The genre is so starved for respectable, memorable, popular and culturally relevant works that it scoops as low as going all Mormon on dead people, here by appropriating books on the flimsiest excuse to claim them as solarpunk: >Furthermore, an economy based on renewable energy might continue using sails on ships as in Pacific Edge (1990) by Kim Stanley Robinson. Their own admission: >The breadth of Solarpunk makes it more difficult to define than its Cyberpunk father and Cyberpunk-derivative siblings. A Dieselpunk story, for example, can be recognized by the presence of its namesake: an abundance of diesel. Similarly, Steampunk is marked by steam-powered devices. Solarpunk, however, does not require its authors to depict the harnessing of solar power. Oh so it's randompunk, sustainablepunk, please-acknowledge-my-existence-punk, etc. >While one typical model for an sf story is to stretch contemporary problems to nightmarish proportions ("if this goes on ..."), Solarpunk advocates for the opposite. It takes solutions to radical conclusions... I leave to you to know if a post-apocalypstic world can qualify as a solution, even if we can agree that it's a radical conclusion. >While one typical model for an sf story is to stretch contemporary problems to nightmarish proportions ("if this goes on ..."), Solarpunk advocates for the opposite. It takes solutions to radical conclusions, be they breaking civilization down into communes, restricting population growth (see Overpopulation), or building Dyson Spheres. Dyson spheres?? Oh yeah these are sooo ecological. These people can't be that retarded, yes? Well, they have a BlueSky and no X account, so... >It is a rebellion against a rebellion, born out of dystopia fatigue. Rebellion against rebellion means compliance to authority, submission. At least they're honest about that.

https://metamoderna.org/we-must-reclaim-solarpunk-from-authoritarian-regimes/ A much more interesting read on the topic that's free from the usual childish sophomore you will find online.

Anyone thinking that The Line will ruin the beauty of the desert landscape? >>86369

>>92850 >The only social medias they are in are mastodon and bluesky I don't need to know more. >>92860 The line that must go up will ruin everything in the world. That one line in particular will only ruin the king. He have seen it and gave the neom project to someone who is realistic. He will build a leisure place where it connect with the sea and everything else is "postponed".

>>92862 Biggest line of dope ever, I wish lol. So the stupid project is shelved for good, right? And Neom, that's their plan for city 01?

>>92860 What a retarded project. Not as retarded as your post, though. Desert landscape, what the fuarrrk lol. Desert is death. We need to completely get rid of every desert on the planet. Terraform every single fuarrrking one of them into rainforests. The prince could greenify a huge portion of that desert for a fraction of The Line™'s cost.

>>92886 Here's another gigaretard who doesn't know the first thing about ecology, and he's posting in the solarpunk thread.

https://slrpnk.net/ If you really need it and reddit isn't enough.

>>92904 Ecologically speaking, forests are better than deserts at every role they could play in the environment: - water retention - wildlife biodiversity, migration and habitation - carbon to oxygen conversion - boosting soil quality - air and water filtration - higher cultural and tourism value Deserts are completely worthless in comparison.

>>93101 yet if you replace the deserts with forests you will extinct quite a few species special to the desert and literally be a cause of major climate change oof

>>93102 >extinct quite a few species special to the desert Species go extinct all the time. Yes, if we turn deserts into forests, native species will either adapt to new conditions or be replaced with other species. It's a natural process. Forests allow for more life in general, so we would end up with more biodiversity in the long run. >literally be a cause of major climate change Yes, that's the point. We should want to change the desert climate for the better. >oof Is your goal to freeze the current state of the planet, and keep it like that forever? That's retarded and completely crazy, it would lead to artificial evolutionary stagnation on a planetary scale. Or maybe you want humans to somehow "exit" the environment, completely opt out of participating in natural processes? Another insane idea, probably caused by abrahamic faiths that for some inane religious reason philosophically separate "divine" humans from the rest of nature. We can't leave the environment, we are a part of it. Deserts cause climate change too. They cover a third of all land, they dehydrate the soil and spread at alarming rates, destroying wildlife and human habitats. Everything is a cause of climate change. The idea that "natural" climate change is somehow inherently "better" than "artificial" climate change requires proof. Some natural processes are destructive, like wildfires, volcano eruptions, desertification, tsunamis, tornadoes, meteorites, solar flares. What's wrong with wanting to minimize the damage caused by these factors? What's wrong with eliminating them altogether? If we do nothing and wait forever, all life on Earth will eventually be wiped out by some random asteroid. We are nature's hedge against such outcome. We should want to change climate. We do it constantly. Environmentalists improve climate by planting trees. I simply believe we should do the same on a larger scale. There is no such thing as "artificial". We are a part of nature, technology is a part of nature. We are not separate from it. We should integrate ourselves and our technology with nature in a way that benefits the environment overall, including us. We should strive to both repair AND improve nature. Help the planet support more life, help it support us. Terraforming barren wastelands into lush forests is a small part of that. We'll need this technological practice for when we colonize other planets with life at some point. We should be doing much more.

>I have heard of your desire to replace the vast sandful expanses with... forests.

>>93101 Those desert places are the best places to gather solar energy. Solarpunk might be obsessed about bushes and plants but its own concept directly depends on such power sources. See >>85531

>>93433 you can also gather solar energy by growing fast burnable biomass and then burn that for energy thats a sort of solar power

>>93434 Someone is not going to like you burning biomass. Fumes and carbon and muh ice sheets.

Solarpunk is neat >b-but solar panels aren't literally the best thing ever! They don't need to be. In fact it would be sad if they were. >b-but utopianism! It's not utopianism to have a vision of what your ideal society would look like. Utopianism is belief that the vision is real. People need this. Really bad things happen when people stop believing there is a reason to donate time and effort to society. You get shut-ins and degenerates everywhere, mental health epidemics, corruption and retardation in the government... hey that's starting to sound familiar. I realize you might have a positive vision of the future, something like living in a nice whites-only suburb with your tradwife and three kids that she raises, and you're upwind and upriver of all those ghastly coal plants. Excuse me for not being thrilled about it. >b-but it's really (((them))) pushing ESG scores! I'm sure the oil and coal industries are all populated with honest anglo-saxon businessmen with no agenda and no ability to effect it. >>92859 Best post in thread. Figures nobody has responded to it yet. I am not sure about all this metamodernist stuff, the article is quite poorly written, but they used the phrase "pragmatic romanticism" which I love. And they're basically spot on about why solarpunk is good and how it can be used for bad. >Authoritarian solarpunk, solarpunk aesthetics used to seduce middle classes and to exclude people and to excuse the curtailing of freedom will also be ugly in the end. >A solarpunk that resolves real problems for and by real humans through truthful communication will result in the freedom and sustainability that solarpunk promises. This is a playful design-battle not only for justice, but for the future of the human soul.

>>93474 >Utopianism is belief that the vision is real. And this is why the existence of the solarpunk dream make people vote in a way that make everything more expensive for me and that result in more taxes. >Really bad things happen when people stop believing there is a reason to donate time and effort to society. See? This is how it happen. Ho, if only I was forced to give more. If only it would be illegal to not do things the way you wish they were done, then the world would be ho-so-great. Well, we tried. We are here. We are spending fortunes on solar panels, the US had ban any investment in fossils for 4 years, the EU is going mental. Where did that got us? It got us to the government being bigger, spending more money that it often don't have, more involved into everyone's life and, yes, the government got more corrupt and more retarded. I did not knew it was possible but a man spend his life learning. That dream come with a high tolerance for crime, for a reason that I can only guess, and the result look like a zombie apocalypse movie. >I realize you might have a positive vision of the future, something like living in a nice whites-only suburb with your tradwife and three kids that she raises, and you're upwind and upriver of all those ghastly coal plants. Excuse me for not being thrilled about it. This is an accurate description of life in the late USSR and it make me feel nostalgic for a life I never knew. Is this the worse counter example you can come with? >>92859 I understand why you don't like Singapore, but they did made a solarpunk looking city It have one of the best economic freedom in the world and as long as you don't do crimes and don't try to take power you are basically free to do whatever you want. A society can not be more free. Dreaming about an open society solarpunk result in the meth zombie apocalypse while the state somehow have both the inconvenient of anarchism and authoritharism, Sanfran style.

>>93474 The cheap gaslighting was not necessary towards the people of a given ethnic group. Is that the way to defend soylardunk? Singapore is also borne of the dream of uniting different nations but it simply does not work, communities form and everybody is chill only because there's money and stuff works and they're living some kind of proxy western dream, but the moment it falls apart, all communities will be waging clan wars. I'm also all ears out to hear how that synthetic enclave is the real lived soylardunk. All I can see is a heavily urbanized area with some trees sprinkled here and there sandwiched between skyscrapers, plus a cute park. >metamodernism Is the article even giving a comprehensible definition? It comes off as a word salad. They are the ones pushing for this new term. https://metamoderna.org/metamodernism/ That's not helpful at all. To say nothing of the fact that the best refutation of modernism was romanticism and a call to the ancient mindset that gave most people on this planet their ancient cultures and epics. The entire website from a try-hard would be liberal leftist philosopher is a pain to read. Like his peers, he his starved for recognition and only exists to invent new terms and legitimize them through vapid walls of text instead of providing really ground shattering views, which I don't think is possible for such people as the left has been useful at shattering one thing only, the culture across time, which includes the future and therefore true hopes. His take on that forced term transculturalism, which I suspect he came up with to benefit from the edgy value of using the trans prefix in this age, is an example of this: overwordy and useless, and nothing more than what amounted to the age old arguments and claims of progressive values and advantages served to people for decades already. It could be taken as the last body spasm of a liberal elder who thinks that multicultural societies, when they are found as is and ensconsed in their seemingly inherent unsolvable issues, have simply not agreed upon the proper methods and arguments to use in order to keep interactions between the different communities productive. It's at best nothing more than multiculturalism that may admit that there are some issues but that would be identified as caused by national populism and racism and other oppressive tendencies, and that more multiculturalism would simply solve them and new improved schemes will act as the glue that keeps the society whole. That is utterly deranged, it's a race to the bottom by a blind king who keeps accelerating into the abyss, convinced that more of what is wrong is going to miraculously turn this entire delirium into something overwhelmingly good. The definition of madness. That is it. Let's ask: so the fetid juice oozing from that putrid gray mass that would feel at home in a liberal boomr's head shall be the basis of a solid treatise on the value and power of soylardunk?

>>93511 Adding to this I will drop this other link. https://www.metamodernism.com/2015/01/12/metamodernism-a-brief-introduction/ If you want to have a good laugh, just read this. Also try to give me a digest version of it. To me it reads as they came up with a term that means nothing because it's everything that's "now" and "soon" and comes off as extremely confused and confusing. This will not age well, that I am sure of.

>>93512 I agree, comrade! We must stick to the tried and true postmodernist TRADITION.

>>93511 >singapore simply doesn't work >communities form and everybody is chill >they also make a lot of money >b-but its all fake, they just wish they were like us westerners, a-and those savages will surely devolve into tribalistic clan warfare any day now cope harder anon

>>93514 They conveniently don't import the most troublesome of the world communities. They also don't mix so how is that a win? Every single one of these groups wants to be left alone which means there are districts which are implicitly and virtually soft-off-limits where it's hard to settle because of the ethnic nepotism going on already. Singapore is a small oddity that only owes its stability because of how the enormous wealth partially trickles down, but it's first and foremost a haven for banksters. That piece of land has no value whatsoever outside of this. You have to be smoking crack if you truly believe that the Chinese, Indian and Malay groups see each other eye to eye. The mafia is there, it's a cut-throat economy and only works because it's so liberal that large financial groups can do their least glamorous stuff without being too worried about authorities, because if the money were to leave, this paper nation would crush fast. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/29/395811510/how-singapore-became-one-of-the-richest-places-on-earth >Singapore has little land and no natural resources. But after its independence in 1965, the former British colony was transformed into a major manufacturing and financial center. The late conservative economist Milton Friedman described Singapore as an example of how to do development right. You can look at the sharing of wealth. It's not so good and will keep getting worse. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/2018/10/19/the-dark-side-of-a-successful-developmental-state-singapores-socioeconomic-dilemma/ Or demographics as a matter of fact. >In terms of familial relations, the trend of declining marriages and increasing divorces has persisted over the last two decades while the median age of first marriages rose. Total fertility rates have continued to fall, from 1.6 in 1997 to a low of 1.2 in 2016. We all know how this will end. >Surveys conducted by the Ministry of Social and Family Development and National Family Council found a growing proportion of Singaporeans expressing that long working hours have impeded them from spending desired time with their families. Among married respondents, the number attesting to being satisfied with their marriages fell. Issues of family violence appear to be on the rise, with the number of domestic abuse cases nearly doubling from 2012 to 2016. This suggests that despite overall increases in household income, the institutions of marriage and family appear to be deteriorating. Since there's a strong bias against old people in the workforce, the only way to keep the living standards high is to extract the money from the high exchanges above, from the financial sphere mainly plus some other trades. Even if Singapore were to maintain this way of life for five more decades it would also be very obvious to anyone that very few countries could present the necessary conditions to this so success. It's like how all US states cannot all be like Delaware. >On individual well being, a cross-country survey found Singapore ranking the lowest in terms of job satisfaction, with senior executives emerging as the unhappiest (Chua, 2016). With average annual working hours of 2,371 in 2016 – exceeding that of other East Asian economies such as Korea (2,113) and Japan (1,719) – Singaporeans face the longest working hours globally. In this context of rising dissatisfaction, the number of mental health related issues have grown. >Suicide rates increased by 23 percent from 2000 to 2016. Mental health disorders are on the rise, with the Institute of Mental Health reporting an average increase of seven percent in the number of new patients annually. >Singapore is found to hold the lowest levels of social trust among developed countries. These indicate that while living standards have improved through increased employment opportunities, new forms of mental distress and social distrust have emerged due to increased competition stimulated by the emphasis on growth and productivity. It's also a state where there is no true freedom of speech, so nobody can really object to this. That piece of land with its abundance of night lights is definitely drifting closer to cyberpunk's nightmarish high-tech low-life pure capitalistic template than whatever else you think it's supposed to be. Talking about working conditions, what about those of actors? https://www.ricemedia.co/actors-dark-side-of-singapore-acting-industry/ Truly grim. B-but they respect the minorities! https://adnchronicles.org/2021/08/09/another-dark-side-of-sparkling-singapore/ But they're super honest, transparent and strict!! https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3234760/citizenship-sale-singapores-u13-billion-money-laundering-probe-exposes-chinese-criminals-paid There's an end to everything. >Citizenship for sale: Singapore’s US$1.3 billion money laundering probe exposes Chinese criminals’ paid-for passports It just became too big to ignore and gives them a bad press. I guess the trees are nice though.

I don't know much about Singapore but one nice thing I can tell you about: they don't have age verification on Twitter. Anyway, it feels like everywhere is rapidly becoming a hellhole nowadays, so it's all more of a taste question. In that context Asia is pretty cool spiritually and aesthetically. I also dig this kinda dragon / nature demons vibe, I can't stand the aura of christianity.

>>93511 >I'm also all ears out to hear how that synthetic enclave is the real lived soylardunk. "the real lived solarpunk" isn't a thing. That's like saying "the real lived romanticism" or "the real lived neoclassicism". It is a city that is often cited, including in this thread, as a city with solarpunk aesthetic. This I believe to be true, at least in how they present themselves to the world. I believe that, along with all modern cities and even many towns, the cyberpunk aesthetic is a much more honest depiction of the actually existing reality. >>93514 It works if you are a big fan of wage slavery. >>93517 >it feels like everywhere is rapidly becoming a hellhole nowadays Yup. How did we get here and how could things be run differently? It always boils down to energy. Energy is how this civilization was built, and unless something changes, our inability to produce or use energy efficiently is also how this civilization will die.

>>93562 Singapore is like 90s America, minus the street criminality high numbers.

>>91654 FWIW, I have found the original and high definition of that revolting picture. https://gruene-xhain.de/pressemitteilung-buendnis-90-die-gruenen-friedrichshain-kreuzberg-zeigen-ihre-vision-fuer-den-bezirk/ It's just missing the wild rats scouring the streets.

>>93562 >We already have all we need but we are not allowed to renew and refine highly advanced power production methods, nor explore truly ground shattering alternatives. The artificial ceiling and sabotage are real. Not that one, but could you elaborate on this more? Do you have concrete examples of such sabotage and people or groups who were limited by the artificial ceilings that you mentioned`? Because I've heard of this before, but only on the level of leftist conspiracy theories, like "the powers that be" and "big oil corporations" using feds to cease research assets and killing competition (something about fusion technology being confiscated by the government or stuff like that, if memory serves?).

>>93566 not him but energy industries sabotage each other for market share. The was also old story how hemp got derezzed by plastic industry lobby because hemp ropes where better and they couldnt compete. So they pushed the drug angle to kill competition they couldnt win against. We probably wasting a lot of resources because parasites sabotage working products to sell their own crap.

>>93565 the beehive on the third story apartment is making me lose my soykaf. i get its just hopeful imagery or something (i hope it is), but there is so fuarrrkin much going on on this street alone that constitutes a public safety hazard the frisbee on the second story patio is too good

If we just would get rid of all the niggers and sandniggers and let white people solve this, there wouldn't be any problems.

>>93569 USA USA USA USA USA USA

>>93569 then just do something, cracka

>>93567 hemp is just better in so many ways it is crazy all you can do with it and it takes far less water than cotton

>>93566 see the regulatory patent system with tons of them taking dusts and legally blocked after acquisition for starters on a more solarpunk note theres the air blimp tech that seems to have stopped being explored all at once i mean wtf!! it looked doable and cool really see previous thread for these pretty floating tampons >>85465

More and more people are waking up to the fact that any advance in AI research and any massive use of AI is done at the expense of populations and their purchasing power as well as the ecological balance we rest upon, while their training for investment and commercial use entirely depended upon using proprietary content and art without asking for consent. Others were built and improved upon for the mining of crypto currencies that require harder challenges and computations, the manipulation of stock markets and flash trading or for sustaining recommendation engines in online stores, there too to manipulate prices in real time to extract the maximum value from any potential customer in insidious ways. None of this is free. All in all, AIs and server farms are exposed as being huge power hogs and water hoarders for massive cooling purposes. So whatever you had in mind when dreaming of solarpunk to me it's obvious that AI will not be part of the picture at all. Here's a (ironically) youtube video about the consumption of drinkable water. youtube.com/ watch?v=cl1ctf1_JxE

>>91307 Is it possible that the blackout was caused in a large part by the power consumption peaks of the activation of data centers? https://www.reuters.com/technology/big-techs-data-center-boom-poses-new-risk-us-grid-operators-2025-03-19/ These AI and data companies are allowed to do whatever they want once they're plugged into the grid and it becomes a matter of skills and prevision for utilities management organizations to avoid cascading failures, large blackouts. This whole thing is reckless and the governments allow this to happen. If the private sector for the AI industry at large and anything related to it want to build its own set of power plants, they are certainly going to be nuclear. But what countries do provide nuclear ore? Kazakhstan, Canada and Namibia are the main providers, followed by Australia and Uzbekistan. Respective furnishing rates are 43% 15% 9% 6% and 4%. There are serious risks of increasing political tensions to consider here alongside the likely necessity of some of these nations to ravage more of their own ecosystems to extract more ore. We are literally eating our own planet to power these AIs and provide more energy to all sorts of electronic systems.

Found this fantastic real existing style online, culturally reflects nature relationship communal values, shall we delegate this to Solarpunk? lains, what do you think.

>>93943 top row is something ive seen in europe too. bottom row reminds weird art project and former sea fort. In other words you read it's african and interpreted something into it that doesn't exist. Its not unique, just weird.

>>93944 Damn, too quick to kill the fun. Fire fvcking archstyle.

>>93943 it looks pretty good, though a screenshot of a tweet doesn't have very much information. i reverse image searched and found that the first two image is the Mapungubwe Interpretation Centre in zimbabwe. i think maybe the issue with solarpunk in this context is that i imagine the -punk suffix refers to a "low" artform, oftentimes focused on practicality and everyday matters. this doesn't mean that anything pretty looking is automatically excluded but it does mean that a museum, while looking very cool, isn't very practical beyond being a place to house artifacts. while the arches are an example of a technique that allows for mass production in rapidly-developing areas, people can't live here, and i feel like that's one of the things that should be taken seriously in regards to the genre's stated goals. https://habitat-bulles.com/architecte-peter-rich-2009-centre-culturel-parc-national-de-mapungubwe-vallee-de-geralta-ethiopie-afrique/ https://dantri.com.vn/du-lich/kham-pha-chau-phi-qua-nhung-vien-ngoc-kien-truc-20190912084220509.htm

>>93943 >culturally reflects nature relationship communal values Could you rephrase that into a proper sentence instead of just an amalgamation of words? >shall we delegate this to Solarpunk? Why? I merely see a vaguely African themed hipster architecture, clearly not organic at all. Show me the architects first. >>93966 >while the arches are an example of a technique that allows for mass production in rapidly-developing areas, people can't live here, and i feel like that's one of the things that should be taken seriously in regards to the genre's stated goals. Just make them slightly smaller. I don't see what precludes people from living there, especially in such a dry area. An arched roof is a solid structure if done properly. The place is merely lacking facilities for habitation. It all starts with sleeping and dining rooms, baths, kitchens and places to store food, preferably meters below the surface, well vented, so it's cold and dry. But beyond being an interesting experiment, what is making this so specific to solarpunk? I hope it's not another case of desperate appropriation.

elevated rooves are also great for keeping the sun off the real roof, but these domes don't look like that's what they're doing

>>93973 >I don't see what precludes people from living there, especially in such a dry area the issue is location. this is in the middle of a national park, meaning there isn't food readily available nearby. while the park could certainly be converted into farmland this is a multi-year project that would require serious infrastructural development - especially a soykaf load of water being piped into the area. where is that water coming from? it doesn't make sense to do that in a relatively isolated area, a better place to do so would be the urban periphery, or by a lake or floodplain - somewhere there might be groundwater. while there probably is water and electric I doubt there is to the extent that domestic and especially agricultural power / water draw would be accounted for. and while its not strictly necessary, gas would be good too. I'm also suspect of the open design due to humidity / climate control and bugs, and ambient temperature difference, but i come from a very wet area so that is my judgment. It also seems like there are hordes of wild jackals that will scavenge of any urban areas. judging from the maps and climate readings of the surrounding region, it seems like this is one of the hottest parts of south africa (or zimbabe), and about 60 miles by road from a town of any sort. there is some farmland about 15 miles northeast, however. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348464918_Impact_of_Land_Management_on_Water_Resources_a_South_African_Context https://www.dws.gov.za/Groundwater/Groundwater_Dictionary/index.html?sa_soils_map.htmre https://aswica.co.za/revealed-what-the-climate-of-limpopo-is-really/ https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/zimbabwe/beitbridge

>>93973 the architect of first is peter rich, by the way. >>93966 linked the article.

>>93982 Water scarcity isn't an issue at all as there are many ways to collect water and store it efficiently, to say nothing of recycling. You could get a container of water delivered to your camp and with the recycling and what you could collect for example from the dew you would be self sufficient, no sweat. The place is dry and full of light, the ground is sane and a decent amount of caves and tunnels is more than enough to store all you need too, while also allowing partially buried rooms to be cooler. Only incompetence would have anyone fail such a project far from any city.

>>94018 >recycling water >from the dew you need ~1800 gallons of water to grow enough food to feed one person for one day, lol. if there even were plants to collect dew off of (there aren't), you certainly wouldn't be getting enough to grow crops.

>>94024 We're talking about smart people using modern technologies. They would have no reason not to take with them water reserves to boot. Collecting the dew can be done with devices too. The gain could be minimal but would compensate for any loss alongside strict recycling. Assuming these people are not too stupid either, they would have planned for collecting every single drop of water they could get from whatever rainfall would happen even if only once a year. Atmospheric water generators would be a very good supplement if powered by solar energy. And before you complain about costs, if a dearth of resources truly were an issue, then any civilized individual would obviously pick a better place to live in. The point being that this experiment is doable but will have a cost. There's also more moisture in the ground and specific forms of food can be cultivated in underground caves. Light can be provided by specific lamps powered again by solar energy taken from above.

>>94207 Not that lainanon but moisture farming is very inefficient and is only used for drinking water; you'd be much better off recycling the water you already have when it comes to agriculture.

>>94215 I think thats his idea though. You start off with a reserve of water that you get from somewhere, (import from some nicer climate maybe) and then you build your semi contained environment in hostile area with a mind to maximum conservation and recycling, and do 'moisture farming' to try to recapture lost water and make up for losses through small gains. Most likely you have fully enclosed farm spaces where irrigation is done and humidity is controlled and you reuse that water over and over again. In a really dry region dew collection might mostly be your own losses but you want to collect it if practical.

>>94215 >reacted to picture, didn't read

>>94217 I see >>94226 I did read the post.

I'm dropping this here because it's more relevant to our weather-centric topic about socialism with solar panels. My original post >>94192, republished here. >>94175 >Spain, for instance, suffers frequent wild fires, on top of which, since it's a dry country most of the year, the water demand of their agricultural sector isn't sustainable long-term, with the current demand and available water supplies. Their production is outstretched and owes a lot to exportation of bad food and it's extremely wasteful because they grow vegetables too fast by using too much water. The food is bland and useless. The issue is mismanagement of resources. They have enough water and more than enough sun to grow proper food. They could also have a plan to produce cleanwater from seawater but like many countries that could gain a lot from this, they don't do it, while rich Muslim cities that didn't even exist fifty years ago rely on this. It is again a criminal and cynical level of mismanagement. >Not directly related to food production, but German pine forests have had to be cut down by the k's of hectares due to bugs that like munching on it. More a case of a lack of a natural predator. Or a political lie on a large scale, a version of what I saw firsthand at the scale of a city with the council using fraudulent excuses to take down trees, because of bugs or illnesses. >In Asian countries they suffer floods more frequently, which fuarrrks up their rice crops. They have to pivot to other cultures. >Finland's apples They lost an edible quantity of apples but did they fail to find a smart use to what they would have naturally called a loss? >No amount of warmth will help with natural agriculture from September till April. It's just gonna make it easier for the bugs and other pests to push up north earlier, stick around longer, and in the mean time lay waste to the little harvest we get during summer. Insecticide is a thing you know. Farmers adapt and change portions of their cultures as well as shifting the exploitation schedules. If the situation truly was that bad we'd already be having nutritional dearths and small famines in places of high produce output, but this is simply not the case. >Also, let's talk about the Gulf Stream. Can we talk about the Gulf Stream please, anon? I'm dying to talk about the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream soon won't even exist, because of climate change. The whole Northern Europe is soon going to be a goddamn ghost town. The Gulf Stream has been there for more than two million years anon, stop being so dramatic. It has seen many civilizations come and go. It has seen much worse in terms of global temperatures, with peaks and lows that dwarf our current exaggerated concerns. >>94181 >If the earth's temperature increases even a little bit more than it did for the past 10,000 years then the entire agriculture industry is fuarrrked. Considering that global temperatures have known several much higher peaks during that 10KY time period there is no reason to be worried nor to play scare-mongering tactics. >Climate skeptics usually point to the fact that the earth was goes through warming and cooling cycles, but the models they are using go back millions of years before humans and agriculture. Incorrect. >And hey even in the best case scenario, we still have to pray microplastics and a whole bunch of other soykaf chemicals we are exposed to daily don't have any long-term negative lasting health effects. We don't have to wait for far removed long term effects, they are already measured today: loss of life expectancy and increased sterility amongst other phenomena. The only detailed answer it got >>94196, to which I will reply in the next post.

Following this >>94321 >>94196 >GISP2 in that chart dated to 1855, not 1905. It may seem strange but in climate research the year 1950 is defined as the present. So, the year 2000 is actually 1885 in that chart. You're rather needlessly obfuscating this. A shifting of the years by some 75 years or slightly more is vividly inconsequential on the overall graph that covers ten thousand years. >The chart also crams time periods together. With the way they disingenuously squish the timeline, it makes it seem like there's a downward trend, when there would really not be a trend. See the picture. They correspond perfectly. The trend is there. >The little ice age is just an anomalous dip. Oh great, you're saying that our global temperature should naturally be higher, so there's no point looking for scapegoats about the rise of temperature because we shouldn't have been in such a colder period to begin with. You've just shot down in the most epic self-own the entire theory of anthropic climate heating, AKA "climate change." >Get a newer chart and you'll see temperatures are still rising. Let me help you here. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/Initiatives/Climate/last100.html >Global surface temperature has been measured since 1880 at a network of ground-based and ocean-based sites. Over the last century, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1.0° F. That's 0.56° C. But it's a bit out of date so let's go for more dramatic values. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures >According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade. Plot +1.5° C on the earlier graph, right at the extreme right end of it, and you can easily see that we are still short of .5° C of the Medieval Warming. Thanks to the all the graphs we can see that even a trend of long-term cooling doesn't prevent huge peaks of sudden warming. >Whether you like it or not in the best case scenario the global average temperature will increase by 2 degrees celcius. That's if we do everything in our power to stop contributing to global warming. Perhaps. Perhaps not. You don't know that and you are not proving that this rise is caused by any human activity. >We won't though, because people still deny that in the modern times it's an issue of human creation. That's called taking into account all the evidence, not just cherry-picking. Here's the thing. Most of the world is now industrialized and has reached some kind of plateau. We are reached some limits in our capacities to extract raw materials and energy from the earth or the sky. There's no reason to think that we, humans, would manage to increase the temperature ever more. >Even with a 2 degree increase, there will be ecological crises. Food chains will collapse. Bullsh!t. The only collapse I see is when there's blatant arson organized on supply chains and depots of chemicals and food, as it has happened all over the US during the last five years but which is simply not covered properly by the medias and certainly not investigated as a real phenomenon. Besides, if the Greenland data are anything to go by, we've been through much warmer periods yet nobody experienced any major event leading to our global demise. We would have to agree that medieval peasants went through worse with their limited means and technology and did fine, but we and our superior technology we would all be doomed? >There will be even more natural disasters and deadly climate events like heat waves. They're only deadly to old people who are not careful. >There will be many refugees coming from the southern hemisphere to the north to escape these problems. There is no reason why the south would be more impacted than the north. You're creating problems where none exist. Take for instance the world map of fertile lands. Tons of people would actually move to South America and the southern parts of Africa. Plenty of good land there to exploit.

>>94322 I'm curious about your second chart. How was that data collected? I was under the impression that ice core data is too noisy to show these fine-grained spikes.

>>94327 Answered my own question, its the same graph as in >>94321, which cites this paper https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00062-1 , but I think this is a dead end, the data in the graph certainly isn't in the article text.

>>94327 It depends on how the noise is defined, thus how many spikes or how much of them would be smoothed out by filters. The more we would try to patch the peaks and holes, the more we'd get closer to the blue line which precisely represents the smoothed out trend. The funny part is that even if it concerned only Europe and the North Atlantic it just proves that we went through this fine and we could even argue that Rome benefited from this warmer climate greatly, assuming these events took place at all.

I'm all for opposition of evidence so let's take a look at contra-arguments. https://science.feedback.org/review/claim-that-the-earth-has-cooled-since-medieval-or-roman-times-is-false-marc-morano/ They refer to two studies: > 1- Tardif et al (2019) > 2- Wilson et al (2016) Tardif et al provide a number of figures we can look at alongside the models they rely on. What you can already note is that the first picture on the top of the page contains three figures. The first one is called the NHMT (low-pass filtered). A quick definition of the low pass filter; >A low-pass filter is a circuit that allows signals with frequencies lower than a certain cutoff frequency to pass through while attenuating higher frequencies. It is commonly used in audio applications, signal processing, and various electronic devices to reduce unwanted high-frequency noise. All high peaks would be cut off. Maybe we should look at the raw data instead? We also read where they funding came from. >Financial support >This research was supported by grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (grant no. NA14OAR4310176) and the National Science Foundation (grant nos. AGS-1304263 and AGS-1702423 to the University of Washington). Up to you to decide if you agree with your government and consider it impartial enough. What anyone can observe is the absolute lack of debate and presentation of evidence and counter-evidence. It's like there were only one side and an already existing consensus. This is not the way it's supposed to work. As for the data. >Data availability >The output from the re-analysis and the required input data are available from atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/lmr/ (Hakim, 2019b). With three sources of online data to parse. Those are very heavy files. zenodo.org/records/4626197 Of all the parameters to look for, surface air temperature (tas_sfc) would be the most straightforward, logically. The two other ones are: www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/27850 atmos.washington.edu/~hakim/lmr/LMRv1/index.html I picked the four last files provided in the third source link. They are focused on the last 150 years or so. > Figure 4: Comparison between LMR 2m global-mean air temperature and other analyses > Figure 6: Verification of LMR global-mean 2m air temperature against other analyses for the trend and detrended signal components See the attached figures as pictures 2 and 3. What both of them show is that there's been a plateau if not a little downward trend for global air temperatures between 1945 and 1975, despite world population growing and the global industrialization increasing too at a steady pace. In other words, if their logic were so sound there should be no pause (figure 4), even less a drop (figure 6). I will look into the second study (Wilson et al) later on.

>>94330 Noise is a property of measurement methodology, not your choice of smoothing. You pick a choice of smoothing to account for the noise you know you have, or more typically, publish the noisy data with a fit line. This is especially important because temperature is not directly measurable by ice core data, you have to use other variables to reconstruct it and if that isn't properly calibrated you get junk data. This is why I am so interested in the data source, I want to know how they derived this temperature data. > It's like there were only one side and an already existing consensus It's common knowledge that this consensus arose in the 90s. That in itself isn't suspicious; scientific consensus just means that the scientific specialists mostly agree about something.

>>94336 >It's common knowledge that this consensus arose in the 90s. That in itself isn't suspicious; scientific consensus just means that the scientific specialists mostly agree about something. By the time it became public there was no serious and objective talk anymore, no disruption to the supposedly accepted narrative was even possible. It is suspicious when the consensus is falsely maintained by silencing the opposition. Money is a prime factor in deciding what a study is going to spew in terms of facts. When an entire industry like Bigpharma is known to be deeply corrupt, I see no reason why another industry that's based on fear mongering and the exploitation of that fear for all sorts of effects and financial gains, starting in the bond producing system, I have far more than enough reason to be extremely skeptic of a so called consensus where it's becoming rapidly clear that our governments have declined serving the people a long long time ago. Wild claims are made about climate skepticism, starting with the idea that "the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming" as found on skepticalscience.com, which is begging for mitigation as far as the US are concerned and is an outright lie when it comes to the European Union, the latter being bent on making people pay for the 1% of their responsibility in releasing CO2 when countries like China or India release as much as over thirty times that quantity, but they're allowed to do so by complicit and traitorous European authorities. The vast amounts of money poured into railroading the narrative result in the multiplication of websites and organizations of all types and scopes to literally bury you and me under a mountain of consensual truths. Sometimes strong implications of manipulation of data can come from the most surprising sources. https://science.house.gov/2017/2/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records >In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming. >The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study. >Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda. As a matter of fact you can check the archive of the first iteration of this topic to see blatant cases of manipulation and the people who try to expose this being sidelined as rudely as if they didn't even exist. The narrative is constantly reinforced with a spam of videos and articles all over internet, literally making it very hard to even find a dissenting website by a mere search. New control claims are created to maintain control over what people are allowed to know. For example, any sensible discussion about solar cycles is once again silenced, sidelined or manipulated. IAs are completely biased and capped in the outputs they can deliver. With governments literally lying about everything possible these days, with made up consensuses, with monolithic worldviews pushed through Western medias owned by a few groups, managing to get people to ever hear any dissonance is almost a miracle when we're living in this gulag of data control, misinformation and bullshit fact checking. >It's not the sun! Okay the sun's been getting hotter since 1900... b-but it's not the sun, the sun couldn't even contribute to the rise of temperature!!!! https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimated-variability-in-total-solar-irradiance-TSI-over-the-last-400-years-Lean_fig3_265740776 They're capable of telling us that an absolutely minuscule amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is capable of increasing the planet's heat to dramatic levels, but when they local superheater which we all depend on gets hotter to the point of increasing the solar intensity on our atmosphere by three watts per square meter, the scientific consensus is that it's totally irrelevant? How come? What to think when most of the studies depend on grants from governments, groups and organizations that have entirely shadow derezzed any scientific debate about climate change? To say nothing of scientists possibly including skewed or plain wrong portions of other models into their own. You can pick very moderate studies and already see a certain bias in their choice of words. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL023849 >we conclude that according to the ACRIM TSI composite the Sun may have minimally contributed ∼10–30% of the 1980–2002 global surface warming. While 10% is definitely on the minimal side of things, 30% is much more considerable, although not a main contributor. They also recognize the effect of volcanic activity >Evidently, from 1980 to 2002 volcano-aerosol and ENSO-SST signals affected climate on time scales shorter than 7.3 years But even such a claim is already disputed despite how almost inconsequential it would seem to be in the large scheme of things. A much less moderate study provides some other figures, even if they acknowledge the anthropogenic forcing claim. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025539 >According to the findings summarized in Table 1 the increase of solar activity during the last century, according to the original Lean et al.'s [1995] TSI proxy reconstruction, could have, on average, contributed approximately 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming: the low and high estimates depend on whether PMOD or ACRIM satellite composite TSI is used for the period 1980–2000, respectively. This contribution is not constant during the century because the increase of solar activity could have, on average, contributed approximately 75% of the 1900–1950 global warming but only 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. By considering a 20–30% uncertainty of the sensitivity parameters, the sun could have roughly contributed 35–60% and 20–40% of the 1900–2000 and 1980–2000 global warming, respectively. These findings would confirm that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century and, in particular, during the last decades. The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest [Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Eddy, 1976; Crowley and Kim, 1996; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995], and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. >[16] The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models. For example, by using different TSI proxy reconstructions, Stevens and North [1996, Figure 15], Crowley and Kim [1996, Figure 3] and Foukal et al. [2004, Figure 1] estimated that solar forcing might have approximately contributed 0.035 K < ΔT1900–2000,sun < 0.2 K of the global warming. This is approximately from two to ten times lower than what we have found. Moreover, Scafetta and West [2005] found that the amplitude of the 11-year solar signature on the temperature record seems to be from 1.5 to 3 times larger than the theoretical predictions.

>mfw when trying to get into solarpunk when me gov goes nosol

>>94518 They already block out the sun with chemtrails.

>>94518 don't worry lainon. It's just a precausion in case of runaway hyperintelligent AI like in the Matrix!

>>94518 Funny even before you realize that the UK already is literally one of the least sunlight receiving places. Due to some geographical happenstance even the nords get more on average. >Oi, m8. We should've blocked the sun now! Did it work? >Can't tell, m8. Looks the same to me! >>93565 Wow! Make sure to let your children go around there unattended. Pic related. >>92201 >Why would you respond to someone who follows the 4chan template Old post but before we reach bump limit, it doesn't matter if it's a malicious actor, ai-bot, but it's rotten ideas than need to be provided answers for. >>92203 You wasted more bandwidth with that than even the initial bait post. I still believe that if we could step aside from the mental cattlefication and the insane hatred of our ruling class of anyone below them then maybe we could have efficient and safe cities and dense and repurposable building complexes without it being a soul crushing technocratic hellscape of a humanoid wagie farm. But anyway, CO2 is overhyped, solar panel farms anywhere other than near the equator are a scam, pollution and ecological destruction from countries that the west has offshored manufacturing to is underhyped. And just in case, new bread: >>94550

>>94518 >>94552 plot twist: blocked sun = more cash has to be paid for heating. Brits are trying to freeze themselves, apparently