Solarpunk - 4th Phase

This series of Solarpunk threads is now celebrating its fourth iteration. The original poster has long been MIA and the threads have largely been populated by a ratio of 99% of criticism lifted against the would-be genre. Is it hopeless? Not exactly, but changes need to be brought if we want to make this useful. Solarpunk is too ensconced in narrow politics and culture war. Synthetic for now, barely yet a genre and maybe called to be something else entirely, it is currently gimped by absurd and childish intellectual prejudices while losing sight of the human element which pertains to /hum/. Or more precisely, as long as the human element is considered, it only takes place according to one specific scheme, using the artificially proped up genre as a front for a insidious political agendas. We are past the point of feigning not seeing what is plain to see. The idea itself needs not be ruined by vapid, superficial and vaguely emotional approaches. So what is so punk about it? Let us define this here: in the age of information warfare, this is about a lowered class of people who fight against a new form of encroaching technological feudalism that slyly pretends being supportive of nature by lying on sustainability of its intentions while increasing the spreading of cities and energy intensive systems at the expense of wild lands, all the while both praising the beauty of the flora but destroying whatever is left of green areas and trees still standing in metropolitan centers. This, we can stand against. We shouldn't accept to see natural resources of our countrysides be tyrannically hoarded to feed the gluttonous appetite of corporations ready to sacrifice all types of life for their softwares and data centers. There is no reason why organic farms couldn't be added to city blocks, there is no reason why parks shouldn't become more numerous, there is no valid reason that floors in a building couldn't be dedicated to plant growth in controlled ecosystems, just like there is no reason we shouldn't work towards reducing the congestion of yesterday's modernity by rethinking our approach to mobility and how vehicles should flow through the artificial arteries of our cities. This directly affects us all. We are the punks. Examples of sub-topics that can be explored: the importance of wild spaces, alternative urban planning for layouts, recycling and pollution management, futuristic materials, permaculture and natural healing, modern energy production and storage, types of transport reliant on renewables, etc. Previous threads >>78190 (deleted) https://archive.ph/aFFkO (built from the web.archive.org page) https://web.archive.org/web/20241214225113/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/78190.html >>85465 https://archive.ph/4IoC4 https://web.archive.org/web/20251027102810/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/85465.html >>91183 https://archive.is/EHLxI https://web.archive.org/web/20251027102104/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/91183.html

Example of cooptation. Key word: beautification https://failedarchitecture.com/resisting-phnom-penhs-beautification-plan/ It's just local elites taking everything for themselves because it's easier. Are these elites more intelligent than the rest of the population or do they just belong to secretive clubs that scheme to keep wealth to themselves?

Is internet sustainable or even necessary?

>Bill Gates Says Climate Change ‘Will Not Lead to Humanity’s Demise’ >In a memo, the Microsoft co-founder warned against climate alarmism and appears to have shifted some of his views about climate change. https://archive.is/Ewien

>>94679 >>94679 back in 1990s every office had a fax, so ... i dunno. Washing machine > internet

>>94723 What happened to "we only have until 2000 to change our habits or else NY will be underwater by 2020"? Why do everyone walk away? Now childhoods haven't been stolen anymore. >>94679 Unless societal collapse will be so hard that even electricity is lost, it will. Necessary I would say no but since it's here it's the best tool for many things.

>>94678 much of the time the so-called elites are smarter in certain ways: they certainly have higher college attendance and SAT scores, which incidentally also correspond to higher levels of narcissism. these metrics don't capture the kind of ignorance, however, that elites seem to disproportionately possess - everyday failures of judgment like not knowing the price of a banana, or the names of their neighbors and the streets they live on. >>95004 it was never that dramatic, lol. a better example would be the destructiveness of natural disasters that have raped the american southeast - Katrina was the moment of ecstasy for the liberals talking about this, but just this last year, significant parts of Texas and North Carolina were underwater. I know people affected by this. our liberal friends, however, such as those who produced documentaries just short of disaster pornography don't have ties to the affected. they instead choose to gloat over social media as lives were destroyed, blissfully in their 'i-told-you-so' as if we deserved it for not voting, as if it would have changed anything. or the mere sin of living in a poor area that was already slated decades ago for climate abandonment.

>>95004 "Climate crisis" fearmongering was to make everyone blind to when it did happen, because it was much more subtle than the media screamed about. People don't notice the sky looks different, the sun is brighter, weather is more extreme.

>>95004 Ice age vs anthropogenic greenhousery = balance.

>>95016 there's also aerosol cooling to take consideration of. this has become more prominent discussion in the last couple years but the research dates back 2 decades. this study is from 2005 but still being cited today. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03671#further-reading https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-human-caused-aerosols-are-masking-global-warming/ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

>The original poster has long been MIA and the threads have largely been populated by a ratio of 99% of criticism lifted against the would-be genre. Almost all of that criticism amounts to posting specious graphs that the poster doesn't understand, drowning the reader in either bogus references or bad-faith arguments, and either ignoring or insulting any criticism. Why should these threads exist? At the moment, all they do is provide a dumpif ground for political activists to astroturf.

>>95023 >Why fight for a better future and care about brainstorming environmentalism on one of the biggest recruited-from genred alternative spaces on the internet, let's just soykaf and go off-topic to a post meant for communal organization committed to Nature betterment to be a mentally impotent lazy fuarrrk like me. What do you do in your free time - easy guess, I dunno, sell drugs?

>>95026 >Anthroposophical medicine Main article: Anthroposophical medicine Anthroposophical medicine is a form of alternative medicine based on pseudoscientific and occult notions rather than in science-based medicine.[113] Most anthroposophic medical preparations are highly diluted, like homeopathic remedies, while harmless in of themselves, using them in place of conventional medicine to treat illness is ineffective and risks adverse consequences.[114] One of the most studied applications has been the use of mistletoe extracts in cancer therapy,[115] but research has found no evidence of benefit.[116][117] Joseph A. Schwarcz regards Steiner as a quack.[118] >The seed of biodynamics was one of the last planted by Rudolf Steiner in his lifetime: he died nine months after delivering the Agricultural Course. But this seed put down roots that were deep and wide. By 1930, biodynamics was practiced on four continents; by 1940, it was part of a global movement known as “organic agriculture.” Though biodynamics was the earliest and best-organized component of this movement, it was certainly not the exclusive cause for the emergence of organics. Just as the organic pioneers insisted that soil health could not be reduced to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, but depended... >Rudolf Steiner conjectured that mistletoe could cure cancer based on the observation that the plant was a parasite that eventually killed its host—a process he claimed paralleled the progression of cancer.Mistletoe-based cancer drugs are widely used in Europe, especially in German-speaking countries.[42] In 2002, nearly half a million prescriptions were paid for by German health insurance, and in 2006, there were reportedly around 30 types of mistletoe extract on the market.[2][42] Mistletoe extracts have been used as an unconventional treatment for cancer patients in the Netherlands, and in Germany the treatment has been approved as palliative therapy to treat the symptoms of patients with malignant tumors.[4] In Sweden, controversially, mistletoe therapy has been approved for use in the treatment of cancer symptoms.[43]

>>95028 Yes......................... and?

>>95025 >most recruited-from alternative spaces The fuarrrk are you talking about? Even if this were true, why would it be relevant? The mods will happily let this thread be converted into the exact same bullshit as the other three were. So far it seems to be even worse.

>>95033 >So far it seems to be even worse. That's what happens when you delete a thread repeatedly. Investment in it is degraded to negative values.

>>95033 >soykafpost incessantly on a thread i dont like >claim that the thread itself is problematic >bitch about the thread as if you weren't always the problem

I grew to appreciate these thread series. They trot about at their own measured pace, never wasting themselves in trivial matters and admirably protected from odious derailments. Would you mind if I shared with you the following article? https://www.421.news/en/low-tech-high-life-a-response-to-cyberpunk/ It reminds me how solarpunk seems to be aiming too high by struggling to curb an advanced technology that the population never owned into being totally subservient to the people. Is it futile? What for those who wish to have access to useful and persistent tools? Recycling, repairs, that should be the way to go. https://cybercirujas.rebelion.digital/foro/ https://linktr.ee/cybercirujas

>>95054 im surprised nobody has posted lowendtech yet https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/ and https://collapseos.org/

Hey! I'm the person who created this thread. Thanks for upkeeping the tradition and caring about the things I'm not in the current mental and physical capacity to proliferate, I appreciate it. Thanks.

>>95008 >it was never that dramatic, lol. I clearly remember scientists and Nobel price winners making maps of what the world would look like if we don't do as we are told. Half of NY was underwater. We only have a few years, said the Science. >>95012 I would rather says that whoever is the more alarmist is the one who get published, invited on TV and sold and who get to become visible. It have created a culture of being alarmist or to not being at all. On top of that come people who sell solutions to this issues. Their social condition, their income and power depend on how much the public think that we should fight against it. This is why they tell us that we are all going to die if we don't. The truth is somewhere, ignored by all, as power grabbers and sensationalists feed people who look for socially acceptable causes to rebel for with easy solution and as the people sink into poverty and all its consequences caused by green policies.

>>95360 >I clearly remember scientists and Nobel price winners making maps of what the world would look like show the maps, then. >It have created a culture of being alarmist or to not being at all. global warming crisis didn't cause that. American society, as a form of protestant society, relies on doomsday mythology. don't believe me? at least 35% of americans believe we are living in the end times. most protestants believe this. global warming was just the neoliberal realization of the consequences of ecological collapse, and the projection of it into the American political framework.

>>95367 It's hard to find them because the internet is not good at finding things that are more than one week old and because all search engines shadowban what lead to wrongthink, it looked like that. isn't it scary? If you own something, this will happen. > American society, as a form of protestant society, relies on doomsday mythology. I am not American enough to understand that, but I can see a sense of imminent doom is universal and intemporal. The sky will fall on our head, Christ will return, Shiva will do this, every society have it's creation myth and its imminent doom.

>>95401 >all search engines shadowban what lead to wrongthink i just dont think thats true

You all hate brutalism. https://xcancel.com/RationalBuild <- totally not a troll account

>>94679 Define sustainable. Any modern activity is glutonous on energy and any modern industrial process is pollutive, while the necessity is sociologically time-subjective for many people would rather trade some of the natural gifts granted by the world for more comfort and expediency. Many also look into it because they need to be more productive for a given discrete unit of time, so that it brings them a recurrent low-key satisfaction on a daily basis.

So it seems that the entire carbon death scare is a pure excuse to destroy economies and private property so that enormous corporations can buy them for a dime. The end goal is to create an enslaved population that will be totally tributary of megacorporations that will own all resources, which at best they will rent to people who are docile enough.

>>95727 Trees are mostly carbon, extracted from the air. Carbon has never been an issue. The whole discussion is a cover for how the sun and moon are far brighter and stronger than they used to be. And to justify security theater tyranny like you say.

>>95727 Scientists want their articles to be published, so they publish what will be published. Politicians want to be elected so they will spend as much public money as needed for that to happen. There may be some darker moves there, for instance it is now public that Russia sponsored the anti nuclear movements in Europe, but it's mostly individuals doing what benefit them directly. >>95405 Go ahead, search for something politically incorrect on Google.

>>95730 no idea what you're referring to but if you think "all search engines" == google then you're retarded

>>95730 >>95730 >Go ahead, search for something politically incorrect on Google. try Ecosia XDDDDDD

>>95727 its a little absurd that you try to align the interest of small business and landowners with climate denial and the things it is used to justify. tell me, is eminent domain ever used to protect ecosystems, or is it rather used to destroy them for fossil fuel extraction infrastructure? tell me lain, are fossil fuel corporations small businesses, or are energy monopolies overwhelmingly state controlled via public-private partnership? is nuclear power an authoritarian corporate interest? if destruction is the goal, would the literal, actual destruction of property via runaway ecological dysfunction not be sufficient and even beneficial to the disaster capitalism you invoke? would it not be in their best interests to sow unscientific FUD about this? >The end goal is to create an enslaved population that will be totally tributary of megacorporations that will own all resources, which at best they will rent to people who are docile enough. ironically, i agree. >>95730 >scientists want their ideas published, so they publish what will be published you mean to say "research what will be published". an overall neutral statement - if methodological rigor, peer review and plausible, actionable conclusions are what will be published then this is good. sometimes this is the case, sometimes it isn't. do you understand the difference? >Politicians want to be elected so they will spend as much public money as needed for that to happen. very much so. is this to argue that global warming is a majority opinion, and therefore wrong? this is fallacious in all parts. >>95735 solarpunk.

>>95735 It's nice to have an alternative but it's also monitored by Cloudflare.

>>94723 >Bill Gates Says Climate Change ‘Will Not Lead to Humanity’s Demise’ Bill gates was on epstein's island. Whether it's for or against climate change, it can be assumed everything coming out of that guy's mouth is jew world order propaganda.

Look at that soykafty ETC Group organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETC_Group_(eco-justice) Eco justice? Unbelievable.

What's your thoughts on today's farmer's protest? The EU parliament which has been turning the thumb screws tighter on the local farmers with high taxes and net-zero regulations decided it's a good idea to also open free trade agreements with places like Brazil and Argentina that don't give a damn about any of this eco-mumbojumbo and farming is predominantly done through deforestation and destructive soil depletion and no consideration of mitigation pollution. The people who have been crying the loudest about climate change and have turned the country sides of Western Europe into solar panel and wind generator farms evidently don't actually care about any of this as they heavily promote getting everything imported from China and South America. This just doesn't reflect well on Solarpunk as a movement, or does it? >>95054 We can't have nice things, especially in a low trust society that's governed by control freaks and their cronies. But the idea of a Lada being retrofitted with an efficient modern and easy to service ICE motor and transmission gets me all excited.

Who the fuarrrk deleted the first one original iconic lainchan post?

>>95771 Corp government does a corp government move. Shocker. What does it have to do with solarpunk, besides the fact that you think solar panels are involved?

>>95771 >high taxes agriculture is subsidized. the farmers are mad that the subsidies are drying up. i don't think agriculture should be subsidized at all, the problem is that the subsidies are so great it would shock the market and cause food shortages if farmers were no longer being paid exhorbitantly to grow food market-inefficiently. i think the most woke thing you could do would be to instead of the current subsidy scheme change them to subsidize regenerative growing practices and permaculture that don't rely on fossil-fuel based fertilizer but that's probably never going to happen. the free trade agreements are supposed to mitigate the food shortages. unfortunately the colonial economy is built on colonialism and the stage was already set for these imports. im optimistic about china's environmental policies (mandate of heaven comes to mind) but not so much for brazil.

>>94679 The internet is just a huge network. Its plenty sustainable. Now, whether "the web" as of exists today, and the massive server farm infrastructure that has been built up around it, is sustainable is another question. My answer is no. "The web", meaning the large "platforms" like google and amazon and Facebook, is an extremely inefficient use of internet resources, and it is also a primary driver of overuse due to the fact that they intentionally make their platforms addictive. It's also unsustainable from a sociological perspective. Any society that makes addiction the backbone of its economy is doomed.

>>95771 >places like Brazil and Argentina that don't give a damn about any of this eco-mumbojumbo and farming is predominantly done through deforestation and destructive soil depletion and no consideration of mitigation pollution and the use of chemicals which are forbidden in Europe. In France it has taken a grimmer turn because they're exterminating the entire cattle of independent farmers on the pretense that there's some very dangerous illness that spreads among the animals. From what I have gathered, the whole thing is one huge fraud to destroy whatever is left of traditional farming. In the Netherlands the authorities are attacking farmers who use methods that have good productive ratios. The global mafia wants all resources to be managed by international mega corporations. Last time I checked what happened in Ireland, they were destroyed very precious pastures to deploy solar panel farms. The globalists hate free people. Social credit, digital ID, forced life in a city under 5G supervision, printed cancerous fake meat, bug pastry, all sorts of things genetically modified including humans considering the mandatory injections of genetic serums. Humans become the enslaved cattle. It's Hell on Earth. But you ask if this was what solarpunk was about? I think solarpunk is another stupid carrot, a pseudo utopia that is only used through application of good feelings while it's a vector for the proliferation of evil schemes. >>95801 What "original iconic lainchan post"?

>>95771 >places like Brazil and Argentina that don't give a damn about any of this eco-mumbojumbo and farming is predominantly done through deforestation and destructive soil depletion and no consideration of mitigation pollution. they're chasing short-term profits over their long-term wellbeing. Basically, they're retarded. >>95850 Yeah, clearly the solution is to allow pollution to be totally unchecked. You realize this is the conclusion that big agri-business wants, right?

>>95850 And the food poisoning. Mercosur is a blight on food production.

>>95850 For some reason the initial solarpunk thread had been completely wiped from the board. I can't tell you why this happened because the OP seemingly had nothing rule-breaking in it, you can find it on wayback machine if you're curious.

>>95985 why did the admins wipe it? conflict of interest?)

>>95852 No, they are clever. If they ruin the place they will jut move to somewhere else. This is an open world. The local countries are at fault for allowing it and the EU is at fault for making their own workers respect one billion regulations and be in competition with the third world. That being said, deforestation is a good thing. It mean more agricultural production for humanity. Do you want us to grow fuel yes or no? If only we were to grow algae to break the co2 we would be fine. >>95805 >agriculture is subsidized Yes and no. Administrators create a lot of rules which create a lot of problem to agricultors when they don't straight up demand that they stop producing or destroy their production, and that have to be compensated by subsidies. Then they are taxed to death because that's the west and the administrators use that extra money for more subsidies so the taxes don't kill them. >>95771 The Eu parliament have no power and only exist to give an illusion of democracy to the will of the commission, which is unelected, do not answer to anybody and whose rules are to be translated in the national laws of all members. If only the commission wasn't retarded it could have a positive outcome, but they are just opinionated people that you usually find on X, just with supreme power over many countries. They do want Europe to not have an agriculture anymore because it's bad for the planet or something and that's why they want to import it all, because cow farts aren't bad for the planet outside of the EU.

>>96039 >deforestation is a good thing Doesn't this depend on the trees/region? You would want to cut down and use invasive useful trees, but for rarer trees for actual agriculture and growth you would rather restore, plant, and protect them?

>>96039 >if they ruin a place they will just move somewhere else They kick the can down the road, you mean. If you apply this reasoning log enough -- and they have (if by "they" you mean wealthy politicians) -- then the whole world becomes an unlivable soykafhole. >It mean more agricultural production for humanity. So does slavery. Just because there are some pros doesn't mean they outweigh the cons.

Hey solarputas, what's your stance on this? https://x.com/unhealthytruth/status/2007498494123356413 Still thinking you're on the good side uh?

>>96112 >what is your stance on some random thing a person made up?? Idk sounds made up

>>95401 I mean walk around the Louisiana coastline for a bit and you'll see it in real time, speaking from experience. That said, there are some people who listened to the scientist a few decades ago and poured money, time and sweat into fixing things. The state of Louisiana, for all its problems, is pouring billions of dollars into fixing the erosion. https://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/230531_CPRA_MP_Final-for-web_spreads.pdf Retards see that predictions from 30+ years ago haven't held up today and think scientist are liars or idiots. They don't realize that things don't seem as bad as they were predicted to be because people listen to scientist and did something about it, and fixed the problem. Go volunteer to clean up a river and you'll meet the type of people doing that work.

>>96112 >grok just said There's no way I could ever take anything this person said seriously.

>>96162 A quick search shows that the company does exist and is in this business of spraying particles, and did get a lot of money to do that. And yes, it's also an Israeli company that has incorporated in the US; the company has promised to talk about the chemicals they plan to use with the scientific community. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/24/global-cooling-startup-raises-60-million-dollars-to-test-sun-reflecting-technology-00620340 >The disclosure, critics said, raises questions about involvement of venture capital firms in driving forward a largely untested, thinly researched and mostly unregulated technology that could disrupt global weather patterns and trigger geopolitical conflict. >The investors were “putting their trust in the concept of, we need a safe and responsible and controlled option for sunlight reflection, which for me is [a] very important step forward in the evolution of this field,” Stardust CEO Yanai Yedvab said during an interview this week in POLITICO’s London office. He and co-founder Amyad Spector, who also flew in for the interview, are both nuclear physicists who formerly worked for the Israeli government. >The startup’s fundraising haul was led by Lowercarbon Capital, a Wyoming-based climate technology-focused firm co-founded by billionaire investor Chris Sacca. >It was also backed by the venture capital arm of the Agnellis’ firm Exor, a Dutch holding company that is the largest shareholder of Chrysler parent company Stellantis, luxury sports car manufacturer Ferrari and Italy’s Juventus Football Club. Ten other firms — hailing from San Francisco to Berlin — and one individual, former Facebook executive Matt Cohler, also joined Stardust’s fundraising round, its second since being founded two years ago. >The firm has now raised a total of $75 million. It is registered in the U.S. state of Delaware and headquartered outside Tel Aviv but is not affiliated with the state of Israel. >The surge of investor enthusiasm for Stardust comes amid stalled political efforts in Washington and other capitals to reduce the use of oil, gas and coal — the main drivers of climate change. They know this is a lie so the goal is definitely more sinister than this. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/12/10/1129079/how-one-controversial-startup-hopes-to-cool-the-planet/ >The Israel-based geoengineering startup has said it expects nations will soon pay it more than a billion dollars a year to launch specially equipped aircraft into the stratosphere. Once they’ve reached the necessary altitude, those planes will disperse particles engineered to reflect away enough sunlight to cool down the planet, purportedly without causing environmental side effects. >The proprietary (and still secret) particles could counteract all the greenhouse gases the world has emitted over the last 150 years, the company stated in a 2023 pitch deck it presented to venture capital firms. In fact, it’s the “only technologically feasible solution” to climate change, the company said. Eating printed cancerous "meat" and bugs, food full of GMOs and mRNA'd soykaf, and now hiding the sun under some kind of sludge. Sounds perfectly normal. What did we do to deserve being born during such grim times?

>>96164 >The Israel-based geoengineering startup has said it expects nations will soon pay it more than a billion dollars a year to launch specially equipped aircraft into the stratosphere. Once they’ve reached the necessary altitude, those planes will disperse particles engineered to reflect away enough sunlight to cool down the planet, purportedly without causing environmental side effects. >The proprietary (and still secret) particles could counteract all the greenhouse gases the world has emitted over the last 150 years, the company stated in a 2023 pitch deck it presented to venture capital firms. In fact, it’s the “only technologically feasible solution” to climate change, the company said. This sounds absolutely retarded. Surely slowly switching to a different energy source and conservation practices would be much more viable over time.

>>96165 They already do this with chemtrails.

>>96164 They want to control all live on Earth and sell it as if they want to save all life on Earth. Once you spot how they lie, you can never unsee it. It's in all they do. It's all they live for. >>96165 This is like the Highlander 2 movie.

>>96187 That is condensation you retard

>>96236 >disperse particles engineered to reflect away enough sunlight WTF do you expect such things to look like? It's obvious the tech is here and in use, "israelis" just want their cut as usual.

>>96040 My point was, when it come to plants, some people become extremely conservative, oppose any form of change that would serve mankind and even want to get back to a point that was uncompatible with modern life. I don't understand why anyone would have such a position. You should ask if it is better to have a surface of forest or either entire grain silos of food every year or to use it for biofuel. Why do we have to live in poverty just to there could be one million varieties of mudroom on a jungle instead of 990 000?

>>96275 Based anon, compleletly agree with you.

>>96275 messing up the enviroment doesn't serve mankind and enviromental regulations don't cause us to live in poverty, or at least not more than climate change does

>>96279 Stop being timid, we need to terraform this planet and then Mars. Mass extinctions are meant to happen, it is not possible that they don't happen and they serve the greater goal of evolution. > enviromental regulations don't cause us to live in poverty When energy costs goes up, the cost of everything goes up and we have less things. It's easy to support it when you are in the upper class, but when you discover that you can't heat your home anymore and have to let it rot in the wet and cold all winter knowing that it may kill you or your kids, you don't think that. More and more people can't heat their home during winter and it's 100% caused by 3 things: taxes on energies, cost inefficient energies and regulations on energies. All those things have the root cause of pant on head environmentalist. I will change my mind when they will want to build nuclear reactors and invest in fusion. Before that happen, I will oppose every green policy with my entire body. We don't need to conserve the environment as it is and you don't even want to do that, it's just how you advertise your policies.

>>96293 >terraform mars Good luck >dependent on fossil fuels Countries that leaned hard into nuclear or renewables have lower, more stable prices than those dependent on fossil fuel markets. Being dependent on Fossil fuels is just playing a game of russian roulette. >nuclear fussion Completely agree, we should be building reactors aggressively, while investing massively in fusion. >We don't need to conserve the environment I want clean healthy food, clean water, clean energy, breathable air, and enough resources for myself and the next generation that comes after me. >it's just how you advertise your policies Why are you generalizing? Not every environmental policy is the same. There are some I disagree with and some I agree with. There is nuance. >I will oppose every green policy with my entire body Why? Not every green policy is the same.

>>96293 >All those things have the root cause of pant on head environmentalist. It's not "stupid", it's done on purpose to make people poor and to seize national and private assets. They're creating a serf society in Western countries while Asian countries see their bright cities full of neons growing. Everything is done to destroy the work of the builders, the foundations are being gnawed at.

>>96293 >we need to terraform this planet and then Mars We've been terraforming it for years. So far the main result seems to be mountains of trash that nobody has a plan to deal with, except letting it accumulate in poor countries. But yeah sure let's just cut down the rainforests, I'm sure they're worth the average cost of beef going down by 0.001 cents per pound for a year. >Mass extinctions are meant to happen Did you know that large land animals are the ones that go extinct most often during mass extinction events? Did you know that having combustion engines and electricity doesn't magically make us exempt? >greater goal of evolution lol. Lmao, even. >until 'your side', as a whole, starts doing things I like, I'm going to oppose everything they do no matter what This is what we call "engaging in bad faith". >>96310 Yeah man, I loved it back when the skies were black and you couldn't drink the water that came out of the tap. See this propaganda video from China? Look how good they have it! Clearly this is because they're burning coal and not because they're exploiting a massive enslaved population and covering it up!

>>96328 >Yeah man, I loved it back when the skies were black and you couldn't drink the water that came out of the tap. See this propaganda video from China? Look how good they have it! Clearly this is because they're burning coal and not because they're exploiting a massive enslaved population and covering it up! Where do you see propaganda? Look at the burgeoning modern Asian cities. It looks like everything is objectively getting better and more enjoyable, prosperous. You see the signs of massive investments done there with implied major amounts of investments which, proportionally, seem to be roughly equal to those which are disappearing from the Western nations where everything is getting worse by the year.

>>96328 >>96838 China & other East Asian countries are objectively growing but it is pretty obviously the "catch-up" growth that any rapidly industrializing society experiences. More developed states in the region like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, have growth rates similar to western countries. >I will change my mind when they will want to build nuclear reactors and invest in fusion. Nukes are expensive, it's not any different in principle then pushing renewables while petroleum and coal are still more cost-effective fuel sources. >>95805 >im optimistic about china's environmental policies I don't see why. China pretty transparently builds renewable energy projects and electrifies everything because they fear the US cutting off maritime petroleum shipments. They heavily subsides electricity prices and burn truly gargantuan amounts of coal to support this system. If the goal was truly to de-carbonize they would be replacing their coal-based infrastructure with petroleum like western countries largely have. While their technological advancements in battery design & production might make renewables more viable sooner, gross emissions reduction doesn't seem to be the PRC's actual goal right now. >>95004 The global climate is a horrendously complicated system we can barely accurately model more than a few days or weeks out. While the greenhouse effect itself is pretty well understood, accurately projecting its' impact is an educated guess at best. We only got objective 100% percent watertight proof that the climate had actively warmed up in the past 20 years (even though scientists have understood this could happen since the 70's). The range of possibility in climate change models from the 80's or 90's was anywhere from "negligible changes" to "an extinction-level cataclysm". Naturally sensationalist media personalities reported the most dramatic results and studies they could find. Nowadays we have better datasets, more sophisticated models, and vastly more powerful computers. This has narrowed the range of possibility down to "moderate environmental disruptions" and "civilization wrecking disaster"; actual results to be determined.

I found that article, it's more than a year old. Guess what? We're fuarrrked. https://theconversation.com/earths-climate-will-keep-changing-long-after-humanity-hits-net-zero-emissions-our-research-shows-why-241692 It's ludicrous. Nothing we can do will stop the rise of global temperatures. Yet we must do something and destroy our industries. Beware! The idea here is that we've been so evil towards the planet, so reckless, that even if we did our best to reach absolution, we'd still be experiencing the rise of climatic hell for dozens and dozens of generations. >Alarmingly, we found reaching net-zero in the next few decades will not bring an immediate end to the global heating problem. Earth’s climate will change for many centuries to come. (Alarmingly) The study: https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1353/2024/

>>96840 >Nukes are expensive, it's not any different in principle then pushing renewables while petroleum and coal are still more cost-effective fuel sources. Nuke doesn't mean nuclear reactor.

Is it true that Bill Gates suggested doing something as retarded as casting particles in the upper atmosphere to blot out the sun? Does he have a hand up his retcum to have him say such stupid things for the benefit of a secret cabal?

I think humanity is about to bust out and collapse because we’re completely SOLAR-DEPENDENT. The startup train of thought should move towards producing INDEPENDENT ENERGY instead. **That’s the thing so many people randomly got k1lled for, anyways. **

DEMOCRATICALLY DECENTRALISED RHIZOME-LIKE ENERGY CENTERS SO WE ARE NOT ONLY DEPENDENT ON THE ONE THING THAT WILL POP OUT BY ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TAKE IT AND COLLAPSE AND USE OUR VULNERABILITY BY UTILISING THUS

Ironically, Solarpunk will be Europe's answer to their agricultural future as without fossil fuels, it will become a back to basics peasant society. It is ironic because Europe tried to become solarpunk in a less punk manner, but now renewable energy will be totally radicool because people will slap that solar soykaf on their housing just to survive. Also a manure subculture will develop.

>>96930 in this context it does >Nukes are expensive, it's not any different in principle then pushing renewables while petroleum and coal are still more cost-effective fuel sources. in my country they'd be a lot cheaper if the regulation did not literally make them required to be about as expensive as any other energy and use the difference on extra safety mechanisms.

>>97080 Fun fact: all nuclear disasters ever were caused by lax regulations and people bending the rules. Also ITT: >guzzline is literally the best thing ever to happen to humanity, it is very important that we remain dependent on it (and by extension, whoever controls the guzzline)

>>97083 Tchernobyl was caused by not being allowed to question orders and blindingly following the rules. Fukushima would have been a lot worse if the power plant didn't decided to ignore their orders and began cooling the reactor with water. >>97079 I am afraid Europe is going to know a bronze age collapse and a century of religious wars at the same time.

lately i've been brainstorming about the possibilities for semi-self-sustainable nomadic living with modern knowledge and technology and it occurred to me that newer is not always better when it comes to sustainability. i've seen things like electric RVs and camper vans, which are of course much more high-tech and efficient and environmentally-friendly than a combustion engine but they're also expensive and not really as sustainable as their conventional counterparts - once a lithium battery pack or a solar cell burns out it is useless and cannot be repaired, it can only be replaced at great expense, whereas the mechanical components of a diesel or gas engine can be continuously repaired and kept running indefinitely by a competent mechanic with the right tools and a source of replacement parts. lithium batteries, despite being a much more energy-dense and efficient energy source, are not nearly as sustainable or reliable as traditional lead-acid batteries, they are expensive and made of rare earth materials and high-tech components, very difficult to build or to repair, most of their material cannot be recycled when the battery is depleted, whereas the traditional lead-acid battery just uses lead and sulfuric acid, both common materials and almost all of the material can be recycled to rebuild the battery after it ceases to hold a charge anymore. when it comes to fuel, gas engines can be modified to run on pure ethanol and diesel engines can be run on vegetable oil, both biofuels that can be manufactured from renewable materials, whereas an electric vehicle is dependent on a city electrical grid which, as of now, derives most of its supply from non-renewable fossil fuel energy sources. it would seem to be that the most sustainable type of mobile habitat would be a conventional engine RV or camper van with a modified flex-fuel engine and fuel injector system which can run on both biofuel and fossil fuel and any mixture of the two, with solar panels fitted to the roof and a bank of old-school lead-acid batteries for storing electricity.

>>97839 >Tchernobyl was caused by not being allowed to question orders and blindingly following the rules. sort of. Dyatlov and the other plant managers whose names escape me were definitely bending the rules by doing the test when they did, rather than when it was actually assigned. Arguably the true cause was lack of safety culture. >Fukushima would have been a lot worse if the power plant didn't decided to ignore their orders and began cooling the reactor with water. Source? I've never heard this mentioned. >I am afraid Europe is going to know a bronze age collapse and a century of religious wars at the same time. century of religious wars? Typical Europe soykaf. The past 70 years was just a temporary break from a thousand-year tradition of killing each other over bullshit. As for bronze age collapse, my answer is "maybe". Like many large cataclysmic events, people have a bias towards believing that the true cause was whatever they are most afraid of in the present, so that it becomes a sort of cautionary tale. The reality is that things rarely play out the same way twice.

>>97839 >Tchernobyl was caused by not being allowed to question orders and blindingly following the rules. What really made the situation worse was the typical Soviet engineering mindset of cut every corner and get it done as cheaply and simply as possible, which works great for a lot of things, but not so great for a nuclear reactor. Instead of using water as the moderator they used carbon because it's a simpler design and a carbon moderator lets you use get away with using less-enriched uranium than a water moderator. But unlike water, carbon is flammable and when the reactor caught on fire the burning irradiated carbon spewed tons of fission fragment-laden smoke into the atmosphere that spread all over Europe. All things considered though, it really wasn't that much of an environmental disaster in the grand scheme of things - the world is covered in factories and coal power plants that are spewing out more carcinogenic filth every day than Chernobyl ever did, and most of the cancers that were caused by the Chernobyl accident were thyroid cancer from inhalation of radioactive iodine isotopes which is very treatable, people can live a long healthy life after having their thyroid gland removed, they just have to take thyroid hormone pills every day.

>>97846 >it really wasn't that much of an environmental disaster in the grand scheme of things in fact the Soviets had much worse radiological incidents, they just happened in the middle of nowhere in Siberia so they could more easily cover it up. Historically, almost all the really bad radiological incidents everywhere in the world come from manufacturing weapons and not nuclear reactors. Surprise, weapon manufacturers are irresponsible. It is odd how people consider the possibility of nuclear meltdown to be a no-go for the entire technology, but the possibility of an oil spill is somehow tolerable. Maybe because radiation is spooky and hard to understand and we've had media portraying it that way for decades, while an oil spill is very easy to understand.

>>97847 >Historically, almost all the really bad radiological incidents everywhere in the world come from manufacturing weapons and not nuclear reactors That's another thing I forgot to mention, I think the other reason for the Soviets preferring these carbon moderator reactors aside from cost and ability to use less enriched fuel was that the design allowed much more plutonium to be salvaged from the reactor and reprocessed into bombs for their Cold War arms race efforts.

>>97845 > Dyatlov and the other plant managers whose names escape me were definitely bending the rules by doing the test when they did, rather than when it was actually assigned. Were they obeyed? Were the other persons in the room obeying orders? >Source? I've never heard this mentioned. Tepco wanted to hide the accident under the rug wand was in denial of haw bad the situation was. They gave the order to not cool the reactors with seawater to Masao Yoshida because it would be too wad for PR. He disobeyed and is now considered a national hero. >As for bronze age collapse, my answer is "maybe". Mine is not. This collapse happened because everyone needed bronze tools to maintain their civilization and then they ran out of tin. What do you think will happen when we run out of fossils? Given how much we already spent in renewable and what we got from it, this is not an answer. No more fertilizer, no more trucks, no more boats, no more logistic, no more metallurgy... What can we reasonably expect? >>97847 It didn't helped that the soviet dismantled their old nukes by blowing them.

>>97855 >This collapse happened because everyone needed bronze tools to maintain their civilization and then they ran out of tin. That's not why the collapse happened, there is still plenty of tin ore in the world and even if they did run out of tin they could just use some other metal to alloy with copper, or just go back to using pure copper. The Bronze Age Collapse was most likely caused by climate change triggered by massive volcanic eruptions, the huge empires collapsed from crop failure and famine and fell under seige by Sea Peoples who were displaced from coastal communities by floods and forced to become raiders to survive, etc. It would be pretty funny and cool if something like that happened again because of manmade climate change, all the people displaced from flooded coastal regions become pirates and start raiding America in boats.

>>97855 >>97863 Two perfect encapsulations of this point >people have a bias towards believing that the true cause was whatever they are most afraid of in the present, so that it becomes a sort of cautionary tale

>>97864 I don't think it's bias, a sudden global collapse of human civilization like that would require some kind of huge geological cataclysm, something far bigger and more sudden than gradually dwindling ore reserves. Even the human-caused climate change we are dealing with now is not really comparable with something like a supervolcano eruption plunging the entire planet into volcanic winter overnight and causing all manner of unpredictable chaos in the global climate for centuries to come. Geological catastrophes like that happen on the geological timescale so they aren't really something that rational people worry about happening within their own timeframe, plus there would be no point in worrying about them anyway, it's not like we could do anything about it. If anything, people have a bias towards believing that these kind of societal collapses are something that could have been prevented or prepared for by human planners, not something that we are utterly powerless to deal with like a volcanic eruption or an asteroid impact.

>>97865 >Geological catastrophes like that happen on the geological timescale Except, of course, for volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, solar flares, gamma ray bursts, and maybe new horrible things we don't even have a name for yet because they've never happened.

Nevermind I'm retarded and got my history mixed up. It wasn't a major volcanic eruption that caused the Bronze Age Collapse, the Minoan Eruption occurred about 400 years before the Bronze Age Collapse. The most plausible theory seems to be the general systems collapse theory, Bronze Age empires simply became too big and too centralized to adapt to the naturally changing conditions of the Mediterranean region, when the climate became more arid there was massive crop failure and famine and the huge empires could no longer produce the enormous surpluses needed to feed their vast populations. >General systems collapse theory, pioneered by Joseph Tainter, proposes that societal collapse results from an increase in social complexity beyond a sustainable level, leading people to revert to simpler ways of life.[63] The growing complexity and specialization of the Late Bronze Age political, economic, and social organization made the organization of civilization too intricate to reestablish once seriously disrupted.[64] The critical flaws of the Late Bronze Age (its centralization, specialization, complexity, and top-heavy political structure) were exposed by sociopolitical events (revolt of peasantry and defection of mercenaries), fragility of all kingdoms (Mycenaean, Hittite, Ugaritic, and Egyptian), demographic crises (overpopulation), and wars between states. Other factors that could have placed increasing pressure on the fragile kingdoms include piracy by the Sea Peoples interrupting maritime trade, as well as drought, crop failure and famine.[65]

>>97863 >That's not why the collapse happened Yes, it was not possible to trade anymore because of the pirates or whatever. That mean the Egyptians who would have been fine were not because they didn't had bronze tools anymore, the Greeks didn't had them and could not export and so on. Try to cut a tree with a cooper axe and to turn in into lumber and planks with a cooper saw. >>97865 Nobody said it would be sudden. It started in the 80's and we are only going downhill from then. Were the life of somebody like you 10 or 20 years ago better or worse? You can date it from the 73 oil crisis if you want. >>97871 >societal collapse results from an increase in social complexity beyond a sustainable level >The growing complexity and specialization of the (...) political, economic, and social organization made the organization of civilization too intricate to reestablish once seriously disrupted >(its centralization, specialization, complexity, and top-heavy political structure >revolt of peasantry (the working man) and defection of mercenaries (the armies can't recruit anymore) >Sea Peoples interrupting maritime trade >drought, crop failure Ain't that familiar to you?

>>97080 >in this context it does No ESL-kun, nukes has always meant nuclear warheads and nothing more. >>97083 >Fun fact: all nuclear disasters ever were caused by lax regulations and people bending the rules. Fun fact: you know nothing and should refrain from posting on this subject ever again. For example, you may count on the Three Miles accident (USA, 1979) as the result of an insufficient training wherein some specific cases were simply not even considered, in this case the under-management of a loss of coolant in the steam pressured section of the system. Now, that may sound silly, you would ask how this could even happen, why wouldn't people be trained to handle that? They can only be trained to run simulations on what has been understood, guessed and projected. It depends on the creativity of engineers to predict future issues. When this creative exercice is faulty, problems arise. Worst of all, the Three Miles accident has a (stupid) theory saying that the incompetence was caused by one of the workers being too fat to see some lights, if you want to believe WaPo on this. Grains of salt not supplied. The even extra funnier bit? All we know about these nuclear disasters are official narratives which you were never given a chance to doubt. Fukushima Diiachi? Read what follows. Beware it's quite a long read but the second half of the page is the same content but in Spanish: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium64.htm >>The only reason I believe the management at Fukushima is not telling it like it really was is because victim status has been so well asserted by the ethnic group in question that it is career suicide to point the finger at them, even when they try to kill you.

>>97847 >It is odd how people consider the possibility of nuclear meltdown to be a no-go for the entire technology, but the possibility of an oil spill is somehow tolerable. Maybe because radiation is spooky and hard to understand and we've had media portraying it that way for decades, while an oil spill is very easy to understand. You can, in theory, cleanse an area soiled by an oil spill. It's much harder to do with an area contaminated with DNA damaging matter that has an half-life measured in multiples of galactic great years.

>>97916 >DNA damaging matter that has an half-life measured in multiples of galactic great years. isotopes with half-lives in the millions/billions of years are extremely weakly radioactive and not that dangerous, and are already commonly found everywhere in nature

>>97916 >It's much harder to do with an area contaminated with DNA damaging matter that has an half-life measured in multiples of galactic great years. The actually dangerous radioactive isotopes have half-lives measured in years. As the other posters said, elements with long half-lives are relatively safe. There are isotopes of uranium that are technically radioactive, but not dangerous in the slightest. For example, the Castle Bravo test was one of the worst radiological incidents ever. There was basically no clean-up effort made, only evacuation. It's now perfectly safe, and in fact the reef there is now thriving.

>>97921 Yes, in infinitesimal small concentrations.

>>97922 >For example, the Castle Bravo test was one of the worst radiological incidents ever. There was basically no clean-up effort made, only evacuation. It's now perfectly safe, and in fact the reef there is now thriving. Comparing a runaway phenomenon that leaks radioactivity into a hard to clean environment, to explosions that see their radioactive content largely absorbed by copious amounts of flowing oceanic water on one hand and the fallout and later residue blown by winds on the other, is hardly recommended. But let's not only focus on the long half-lives after all if we're going to talk about the lethality of the particles' respective radiations. The Fukushima accident occurred only fifteen years ago, some of its shortest radioactive isotopes, those incidentally that radiate the faster, are still present and dangerous. Some info on Bikini island. >Permanent resettlement of Bikini Island under the present radiological conditions without remedial measures is not recommended in view of the radiation doses that could potentially be received by inhabitants with a diet of entirely locally produced foodstuffs. >This conclusion was reached on the basis that a diet made up entirely of locally produced food-which would contain some amount of residual radionuclides could lead the hypothetical resettling population to be exposed to radiation from residual radionuclides in the island, mainly from 137Cs, resulting in annual effective dose levels of about 15 mSv (if the dose due to natural background radiation were added, this would result in an annual effective dose of about 17.4 mSv). This level was judged to require intervention of some kind for radiation protection purposes. https://www.bikiniatoll.com/whatrad.html

>>97931 >Comparing a runaway phenomenon that leaks radioactivity into a hard to clean environment, to explosions that see their radioactive content largely absorbed by copious amounts of flowing oceanic water on one hand and the fallout and later residue blown by winds on the other, is hardly recommended. Indeed, the Castle Bravo test saw both intense gamma radiation *and* intense fallout, and the fallout was the main problem. Fallout doesn't disappear when it's taken in to shallow ocean, if anything that makes it harder to clean as you can't simply flip over the soil as they did around Chernobyl, it becomes part of the environment almost immediately. By many objective measures, such as miscarriages and cancer incidence, as well as sheer disinterest in safety, the Castle Bravo tests were worse than Chernobyl. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. >The Fukushima accident occurred only fifteen years ago, some of its shortest radioactive isotopes, those incidentally that radiate the faster, are still present and dangerous. Indeed. Again I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It takes a while even for short-lived radiation to die down? Yes. But 'a while' means decades, not centuries. >Permanent resettlement of Bikini Island under the present radiological conditions without remedial measures is not recommended That was in 1995. Over 30 years ago. Currently, a small number of caretakers live there year-round, and the Marshallese are seriously considering moving back in. They have a very understandable aversion to it, though, after being lied to multiple times. >This level was judged to require intervention of some kind for radiation protection purposes. Keep in mind that on average, a person in the U.S. experiences 600 mrem, or 6 mSv, per year, and more like 10 mSv if you live at high altitude. If you live near a hospital, that's 1 extra mSv per year that's within legal limits. If you are a pilot or cabin crew on an airplane, that's ~3 mSv pr year extra. The limit for extra exposure to the general public is ~5-10 mSv per year. The limit for people working in nuclear power plants is 50 mSv per year. 15 mSv is high, but not disastrously high, especially if it's measurements from 30 years ago that we're trying to extrapolate from. Although, the actual effect of radiation varies quite a lot depending on the method of action. Ingesting radioisotopes is much worse for you than just being exposed, which seems to be the main concern today. However, Marshallese people do occasionally eat the food from there, with apparently no ill effects. https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/affected-areas/bikini-atoll The long-term effects of oil spills are much less well studied, but the compounds found in crude oil are toxic and carcinogenic and stick around in the environment for years afterwards. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27221976/

i stumbled across an essay by some woodworker/artist blogger about biodiesel vs electric cars that i found interesting: http://www.davidwalbert.com/dw/2022/06/07/biodiesel-people-vs-electric-car-people/ as much as i think electric cars are cool and a good idea, as a diy enthusiast i agree with this person's sentiments about how they are a very top-down and technocratic solution that don't really give much control to regular people. a regular person can't really build an electric car in their garage, at least not a good one that would have any reasonable range. at best the diy-er can build an e-bike by retrofitting a bicycle with an electric motor and a battery pack ordered from china but when the electric motor burns out or the battery pack dies the diy-er can't really fix them or rebuild those high-tech components, they just have to throw them away and buy new ones because these are extremely fiddly components that require a high-tech industrial sector to produce at any practical level. likewise the electric cars on the market today are not really built to last, they're full of fiddly, specialized, and often proprietary components that just have to be disposed of and replaced at great expense when they break, they're all made by companies that have embraced the steve jobs silicon valley ethos of planned obsolescence and throwing things in the garbage instead of fixing them. if industrial society ever collapses or goes through some terrible economic catastrophe or whatever, electric cars aren't going to be of much help to people who are living on the road like the grapes of wrath, driving from place to place looking for work or food or whatever they need to survive, they'll be dependent on functional city infrastructure to recharge their batteries and specialized dealerships to fix their cars when they break down, and the electric cars be totally worthless to people who live completely off the grid in the middle of nowhere where there are no charge stations or dealerships at all. on the other hand, people who are driving some old ford econoline van or something can still fix and maintain their engines, find plenty of spare parts everywhere or even manufacture them themselves with some basic metalworking knowledge, if fossil fuels become too hard to come by they can press seeds into fuel oils for diesel engines or distill corn into moonshine and modify gasoline engines to run on that, regular people can build a whole biofuel economy from the bottom up and produce and buy and sell biofuel without the need for a huge industrial sector. part of what got me thinking about this is, i live in a house in the american pinewood country and there are 7 massive pine trees in my backyard so i have a spent a lot of time raking up pine needles and cleaning pine needles out of the gutters, piling up massive mounds of pine needles that i stuff into contractor bags and lug out to the curb for the garbagemen to dispose of, and i've often thought about how much potential energy is being wasted here, i wonder how much biofuel a person could extract and refine from all these hundreds of pounds of biomass that are just being thrown away because we haven't yet figured out a smarter way to extract all that chemical energy that is locked away in long hydrocarbon chains in this stubborn waxy cellulose material.

ENERGY DEPENDENCE ON THE SUN WONT HELP WE NEED TO DECENTRALISE ENERGY PRODUCTION WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>97972 SOLARPUNK IS JUST A REITERATION OF THE SAME DUMB THING UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME THAT DOESNT TACKLE THE ENERGY PRODUCTION BEING THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM WOOOOOOOOOOOHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA this is my crown высер don’t thank me you’re welcome

>>97971 related note, some years back i got into homebrewing as a hobby and i learned about something called "angel yeast" which is this chinese yeast product sold online, a mixture of yeast and koji mold that has been traditionally used in making sake for years but for a long time it was closely guarded trade secret and until recently was pretty much unknown in the west. basically this koji mold breaks down the complex carbohydrates in grain into simpler sugars that the yeast can then digest and turn into alcohol. in the traditional process of making moonshine, you take corn or barley or some other grain and you have to sprout it by getting it wet and letting it sit for like a week while constantly aerating it to prevent molding, and this malting process is what breaks down the complex carbohydrates into fermentable sugars that the yeast can consume when you add it to your cooked mash. with the angel yeast, you can skip this whole step and you don't even need whole grain, you can buy a 50 lb bag of cracked corn animal feed from tractor supply for like $10 and cook it into mash and start fermenting right away. the downside is, your resulting moonshine will have kind of a subtle weird earthy/sour taste to it as a byproduct of the koji enzymes, but if you're distilling it all the way to 190 proof and using it as biofuel then this doesn't really matter. this kind of stuff is fascinating to me, i like technological breakthroughs that are accessible to rednecks doing diy soykaf in their backyards, and i'm curious as to what kinds of genetic engineering is possible to make it easier for regular people to turn worthless biomass into a practical energy source

>>97972 >energy dependence on the sun won't... We're already totally dependent on energy from the sun. Where do you think your food comes from? Anyway, rooftop solar for homesteaders was one of the first applications of solar panels...

>>97971 Biodiesel is not much better because you are just having to buy industrial chemicals to make it unless you make isobutinol which is produced via fermentation but that is toxic.

>>97973 высер means soykaf-out or yappery* prophetic yappery

>>98003 >Biodiesel is not much better because you are just having to buy industrial chemicals to make it unless you make isobutinol which is produced via fermentation but that is toxic. the chemicals you need to manufacture biodiesel fuel are vegetable oil, alcohol, and lye. you make vegetable oil by squeezing seeds/beans/etc. in a press, you make alcohol by fermenting grain/fruit with yeast and running it through a still, you make lye by leaching water through wood ash. all these ingredients are pre-industrial materials that you can manufacture from natural materials without even the need for electricity. also the transesterification process is not even strictly necessary - the main purpose of it is simply to lower the viscosity of the fuel to make it flow properly through diesel engines designed for conventional lower-viscosity fuel oils. with some mechanical modifications, such as a secondary pre-heating stage or even a manual hand-pump compressor, you can run a diesel engine on straight vegetable oil without any need for transesterification, all you would need to do is filter out all the particulate from the oil.

in effect, biofuels are basically an indirect and less efficient, but much more democratic form of solar power - plants are natural solar collectors that convert solar energy into hydrocarbons; a combustion engine burns the hydrocarbons and uses the thermal energy to perform work with about 30% efficiency. the heavy mechanical moving parts make it not nearly as efficient as a solid state photovoltaic cell turning solar energy directly into electrical current or a battery directly driving an electric motor, but the upshot is all these heavy mechanical parts are things that can be handcrafted out of plain old steel by an artisan with hammer and anvil, whereas things like solar cells and electric motors and modern batteries are impossible to handcraft, they require huge complex electrical equipment to do things like refine silicon and reactive metals, spool copper into fine wire for coils, they require global distribution networks to obtain rare earth minerals that can only be found in certain parts of the world, etc. i guess the point i'm making is that decentralization of technology may be incompatible with our current attitudes towards progress which are geared very heavily towards centralization. we have these utopian star trek conceptions of a future post-scarcity society where everyone gets all their food and everything else they need from these super high-tech replicators built and maintained by some central authority, but what happens if this supply chain is disrupted and all these people suddenly find themselves destitute and helpless because they have completely forgotten how to do anything for themselves?

>>98012 >whereas things like solar cells and electric motors and modern batteries are impossible to handcraft That's not true at all, the only one of these that is actually difficult to manufacture (in the sense of requiring specialized equipment) is photovoltaic cells. You can definitely make your own DC motor and your own lead-acid battery with materials that are not hard to find. In fact I don't even know for sure that photovoltaic cells are impossible to make at home. The explosions & fire guy is proof that you can get really far in chemistry with only tools and materials (and skill) available to a hobbyist. Imagine if he had an incentive to make working photovoltaic cells aside from just getting views on youtube. If you handcrafted engine components, like fabricating the components with an angle grinder and a forge, it would almost certainly run like soykaf and break all the time. You need a really good machining setup to hit the tolerances that make an engine you can buy at the store so efficient and low-maintenance.

>>98013 I think making a steam or stirling engine is feasible with the right skills. There is no way anyone is making an explosion engine without precise machining though. An electric motor is comparatively much simpler, probably a similar level of complexity as a steam engine, but with fewer moving part, so more robust.

>>98013 lead acid batteries are not modern batteries, they're centuries-old tech and their energy:mass ratio is far too low to use them for vehicle propulsion. likewise low-tech brushed electric motors are extremely inefficient (<20%) and wear out very quickly compared to modern brushless motors that use rare earth magnets and solid state electronics. batteries and electric motors could not have been refined any further without having centralized high-tech industrial sectors and supply chains, otherwise we would have been using electric vehicles from the beginning and not even bothered with combustion engines at all. when it comes to manufacturing tolerances, you would be surprised how far you can get with hand tools and careful measurements. combustion engines were built by hand long before there were things like automation or electric machining tools. these developments were not really essential for the skilled craftsman, their purpose was to eliminate the need for the skilled craftsman and speed up the production process, allowing products to be mass produced quickly and cheaply, often with less regard for tolerances than things made by hand. and not all products were improved in this manner. for example, go to a hardware store and buy a modern mass-produced hand plane and compare it with an antique hand plane that was handcrafted a hundred years ago - the modern hand plane is a useless piece of junk, the sole will be warped or cupped and the blade will be made of weak steel that won't hold an edge, whereas the antique plane has a sole that was sanded dead flat and a blade that was forged and tempered by skilled human hands. the new ways aren't always better.

>>98022 >batteries and electric motors could not have been refined any further without having centralized high-tech industrial sectors and supply chains the exact same thing could be said of combustion engines. >otherwise we would have been using electric vehicles from the beginning and not even bothered with combustion engines at all. Compared to the idea of using fire/explosions to drive an engine, electric motors were bleeding edge tech in the 19th century. This is like saying "if quantum computers are so good, how come people spent so much effort developing classical computers?" >they're centuries-old tech and their energy:mass ratio is far too low to use them for vehicle propulsion then the comparison to handcrafted combustion engines running homemade biodiesel is pretty apt. >combustion engines were built by hand long before there were things like automation or electric machining tools Sure, experimental ones. If your bar is something that could be used to propel a vehicle, then such engines were not built until machining technology had advanced quite a bit. They had, at the very least, metal lathes, bandsaws, and electricity when the first engine to propel a car was built. > these developments were not really essential for the skilled craftsman Do you think these engines were made in a carpenter's cottage? They were still being made in an industrial facility with huge machines.

>>98016 >>98030 most modern combustion engines are made of machined aluminum- with a drill press and a lathe and a band saw- along with an angle grinder/cutter- you could machine every part necessary for an engine assuming you had bar stock steel and solid aluminum. (even magnesium would work actually)

>>98031 Good luck getting solid aluminum or magnesium without an industrial supply chain. At best we're talking about cast iron for the block and forged steel for the pistons.

>>98032 you're absolutely tripping if you think that cast iron would be easier to make and work with than aluminum. For one thing you could get the aluminum easily by recycling cans and smelting them while infusing it with argon- preventing the hydrogen bubbling problems and allowing you to cast a solid block of aircraft grade. Casting pig iron, not to mention cast iron is so incredibly energy intensive that until coke was discovered as flux it took several days of billowing coal to get that kind of heat. Meanwhile you can extract aluminum from bauxite via electrolysis and smelt it with a propane or map gas furnace

>>98030 >Do you think these engines were made in a carpenter's cottage? yeah, pretty much. they didn't have huge industrial mass production facilities in the 1800s, everything was made in workshops by craftsmen with no power tools or electricity. anyway this is just irrelevant nitpickery here, the main idea of this thread and the solarpunk ethos is to think about ways of decentralizing technology and reskilling our de-skilled society and decreasing our dependence on the failing industrial capitalist system. my whole point with the biofuel thing is that looking forward to emerging state-of-the-art technologies is not necessarily the only thing we can do, we might also be able to look backwards at old technologies that worked well in the past and apply our modern knowledge and tools to recycle these old technologies into modern, accessible, sustainable solutions for the future.

>>98031 aluminum engine blocks are actually casted, and i think they don't even bother finishing them with any precision machining unless it's an expensive sports car or something. but at any rate you don't need aluminum for an engine block and the old cast iron kind were actually a lot better than the modern aluminum ones, and unlike aluminum you can smelt iron/steel from ore without the need for electricity or huge expensive industrial machinery. modern cars switching to aluminum engine blocks was enshittification imo. aluminum is a crappy flimsy metal for making beer cans and other disposable garbage, it's much weaker and less heat-resistant than cast iron. car companies claimed they did this to reduce weight and increase fuel efficiency, but the aluminum engine block only shaves off about 50-100 lbs off a 3000+ lb car and in exchange for this meager weight reduction the longevity of the vehicle is drastically reduced. another example of newer not necessarily being better.

>>98038 >Casting pig iron, not to mention cast iron is so incredibly energy intensive that until coke was discovered as flux it took several days of billowing coal to get that kind of heat. People were doing it 500 years before they figured out how to refine or work aluminum, so it must be easier to do. /s >>98039 >yeah, pretty much. they didn't have huge industrial mass production facilities in the 1800s, everything was made in workshops by craftsmen with no power tools or electricity. again, they were still made in factories. The factories weren't like what you think of as an automated assembly line today, but they were still factories with large pieces of machinery. Also, by 1900 most factories were electrified in the industrial heartlands. This is because it had very clear benefits over paying a bunch of dudes or a team of oxen to drive your lathe. >my whole point with the biofuel thing is that looking forward to emerging state-of-the-art technologies is not necessarily the only thing we can do I agree, but I think you're overselling the payoff:resource benefits of combustion tech when it comes to decentralized manufacturing and sustainability.

>>98042 smelting iron ore is a lot more difficult than electrolysis on bauxite. the problem is they hadn't discovered how to do it easily. for example if you had a gas generator you could make aluminum with probably 100 to 150x less energy- they simply hadn't discovered the DC generator until recently

>>98057 smelting aluminum from ore still isn't really feasible for a regular person, it requires huge amounts of power, like hundreds of thousands of amps; you can't pull more than 15-20A out of your home outlet without tripping the circuit breaker, and if you tried it without the breaker the thin wiring in your walls would instantly ignite and burn your house down. even the residential power lines outside your house can't handle that much power, you need a high-tension line and your own dedicated substation with giant industrial rectifiers and soykaf like that. but fortunately, thanks to our incredibly wasteful industrial capitalist society, you don't actually need to smelt any ore to get aluminum, there's millions and millions of tons of scrap aluminum piled up in garbage dumps in every city in the world and melting down that stuff is definitely feasible for the average person, you can do it in your backyard with a charcoal furnace. the same goes for steel as well, people don't usually realize just how much scrap there is in the world, just laying around not being used for anything. industries produce so much excess waste and accrue so much excess wealth that it's not worth their time or effort to recycle anything, the only reason they recycle at all is because of government incentives like subsidies and tax breaks and whatnot. but for a regular person who isn't a hyperwealthy inhuman corporate entity, all this scrap metal is not just worthless junk and it can be well worth their time to melt it down and turn it into some unique artisanal work. pic related: diy step-down transformer for stick welding made from scrap metal by some poor dude in africa

alumninium also just gets full of that awful oxide garbage its nice but its a bit of a pain to work with. Easier to reach temperature though

>>97933 >Indeed, the Castle Bravo test saw both intense gamma radiation *and* intense fallout, and the fallout was the main problem. Fallout doesn't disappear when it's taken in to shallow ocean, if anything that makes it harder to clean as you can't simply flip over the soil as they did around Chernobyl, it becomes part of the environment almost immediately. I never claimed that fallout disappeared. In the CB case it has been carried away by wind for the most part. For Chernobyl, it's been moved around by manual labor, displacing the issue from one spot to another. Most of the contaminated material around Chernobyl still lies in trenches of varying depth that are just there to sit for a long time and making the place unusable. Soil replacement was also applied across most of the Bikini Atoll by the way. >By many objective measures, such as miscarriages and cancer incidence, as well as sheer disinterest in safety, the Castle Bravo tests were worse than Chernobyl. In terms of effects, which include but were not limited to economical ones regarding forestry and agriculture, or on the geographical pollution over a given area, or on the demographic health itself, Chernobyl stands way above CB. >It takes a while even for short-lived radiation to die down? Yes. But 'a while' means decades, not centuries. It means the shortest lived particles are not the least dangerous. They die off quicker precisely because they radiate more, but the thing being that if you can avoid them, such as not inhaling the particles for example, then the real and nagging issue becomes the longer lived ones and there is nothing much that can do about them but trying to find them and move them away. One way or another I'd rather deal with with an oil spill in most cases than with some radioactive crap. At least the crude and bitumen can somehow be destroyed in a large part through various methods. That cannot be done with nuclear waste. >That was in 1995. Over 30 years ago. Runit and its dome, the "local" nuclear trash container for all other cleanup processes, is forever off-limits and remains a huge environmental hazard. Now, despite different remediation efforts (AKA moving the garbage from one place to another), the whole northern portion of the Enewetok Atoll, which the Runit island belongs to, is in fact still closed off to this day. Most of the Bikini atoll is still not suitable for a definitive resettlement. Generally, most of the Rongelap atoll (east of the Bikini one) remains precarious and not ready for a complete return of human occupation. Rongerik is still considered contaminated. Same for Ailinginae. >Although, the actual effect of radiation varies quite a lot depending on the method of action. Ingesting radioisotopes is much worse for you than just being exposed, which seems to be the main concern today. However, Marshallese people do occasionally eat the food from there, with apparently no ill effects. Occasionally being the key word here. They most certainly select where they go diving and fishing. >https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/affected-areas/bikini-atoll Oh look, a link. Did you even read it? No. Reading the document could actually help. >As of March 2016, there were about 5,400 Bikini islanders. About 800 Bikinians live on Kili, 2,550 on Majuro, 300 on Ejit, and 350 in other parts of the Marshall Islands. About 1,400 Bikinians live in the United States or other countries. Today, Bikini Atoll largely remains uninhabited. Kili island is part of the Ralik Chain, it does not belong to the Bikini Atoll. Majuro is the country’s capital, it's in the Majuro Atoll, in the Ratak Chain. Ejit is an islet within Majuro Atoll. All of which is in the far South-East area, very far from the Bikini Atoll. Some more, a smaller portion, seem to be living in the Kwajalein Atoll, on Ebeye island. >The future resettlement of Bikini Atoll remains very uncertain. The Bikini leadership continue to lobby the U.S. Congress for additional funding to provide necessary infrastructure development and for full cleanup and rehabilitation of their entire atoll. >The long-term effects of oil spills are much less well studied, but the compounds found in crude oil are toxic and carcinogenic and stick around in the environment for years afterwards. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27221976/ How many years actually? You were being nitpicky about the duration after all. What does it say exactly? >Some of the observed effects even indicated that several symptoms may persist for some years after exposure. Firstly, it's years, not decades. Secondly, if you were not exposed to the initial damage, unless proved otherwise, you're not at risk. For example, pushing the research on the basis of the paper you gave, I went looking for the Prestige Oil Leak, and although the longest post-event duration of ill effects was about seven years (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24370900/), it's always only concerned about the large quantity of people who intervened to clean the spot, and about the people directly exposed to high concentration of the substance who have had health issues.

>>97971 >as much as i think electric cars are cool and a good idea, as a diy enthusiast i agree with this person's sentiments about how they are a very top-down and technocratic solution that don't really give much control to regular people. That is precisely why they push for electric this and that in all possible ways while assaulting our dependence on it through price jumps, while damaging alternate sources of power, making us compliant and poor. That's all. And a profusion of electricity dependent systems conveniently means a spread of electronic systems, which means more surveillance. These people hate us. Ever heard of the story about Rockefeller and the struggle between oil and biofuel? >part of what got me thinking about this is, i live in a house in the american pinewood country and there are 7 massive pine trees in my backyard so i have a spent a lot of time raking up pine needles and cleaning pine needles out of the gutters, piling up massive mounds of pine needles that i stuff into contractor bags and lug out to the curb for the garbagemen to dispose of, and i've often thought about how much potential energy is being wasted here, i wonder how much biofuel a person could extract and refine from all these hundreds of pounds of biomass that are just being thrown away because we haven't yet figured out a smarter way to extract all that chemical energy that is locked away in long hydrocarbon chains in this stubborn waxy cellulose material. Wait until you realize that if you had oaks you could eat their acorns too by grinding them into a flour.

>>98138 >It means the shortest lived particles are not the least dangerous. That's what >>97922 was saying: >>The actually dangerous radioactive isotopes have half-lives measured in years. >then the real and nagging issue becomes the longer lived ones and there is nothing much that can do about them but trying to find them and move them away. Let's be specific here: in both cases, the main long-lived radioactive contaminant is Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years. Not hundreds of years. >Runit and its dome, the "local" nuclear trash container for all other cleanup processes, is forever off-limits and remains a huge environmental hazard. Not forever, and the Runit dome is actually less radioactive than some of the nearby craters. All it really does is prevent dust from getting kicked up while it decomposes. >Did you even read it? No. Yes I did. I read every word you quoted, they weren't relevant to the argument I was making and they aren't relevant to the argument you're making.

>>98140 >Let's be specific here: in both cases, the main long-lived radioactive contaminant is Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years. Not hundreds of years. Cesium-137 is, with strontium-90, are the main dangerous radionuclides if we limit the risk to ingested food and have the same short half-lives. Americium-241 has a half-life of some 432.6 years and its threat is real. Then, the moment we look into inhalated particles, other nucleotides become very dangerous and we cannot ignore the plutonium isotopes which have half-lives in tens of thousands of years. >Not forever Do I really have to explain that I used the word forever as a figure of speech? Plutonium‑239 is quite present under the dome and its effective lifetime for risk spans 24.1K years, right? That pile of radioactive cat soykaf is not gonna stop being a problem for the next centuries, at the very least, if not millennia, until someone decides to spend hundreds of millions to dig it up in the cleanest way possible, likely by creating a larger structure first, then moving the real danger out, then dismantling the structure too, and burrying all that garbage into a deep deep hole or at the bottom of some oceanic chasm. >the Runit dome is actually less radioactive than some of the nearby craters. I didn't pretend the craters were any less dangerous. But if you want to look into those craters and their immediate surrounding areas, they are full of radionuclides that are just as dangerous and have very long half-lives. >All it really does is prevent dust from getting kicked up while it decomposes. Big handwaving. It is not a minor threat by any measure of it, especially since the concrete is cracking. >Yes I did. I read every word you quoted, they weren't relevant to the argument I was making and they aren't relevant to the argument you're making. You used it as evidence of your chain of posts that followed your initial claim, which frankly was ridiculous: >>For example, the Castle Bravo test was one of the worst radiological incidents ever. There was basically no clean-up effort made, only evacuation. It's now perfectly safe, and in fact the reef there is now thriving. The link you dropped contradicted this same stance that tried to claim that things were very fine overall.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/ >Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? >2015 Annual GWPF Lecture >Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015 >My Lords and Ladies, Ladies and Gentlemen. >Thank you for the opportunity to set out my views on climate change. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see. >The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”. >Why then did I leave Greenpeace after 15 years in the leadership? When Greenpeace began we had a strong humanitarian orientation, to save civilization from destruction by all-out nuclear war. Over the years the “peace” in Greenpeace was gradually lost and my organization, along with much of the environmental movement, drifted into a belief that humans are the enemies of the earth. I believe in a humanitarian environmentalism because we are part of nature, not separate from it. The first principle of ecology is that we are all part of the same ecosystem, as Barbara Ward put it, “One human family on spaceship Earth”, and to preach otherwise teaches that the world would be better off without us. As we shall see later in the presentation there is very good reason to see humans as essential to the survival of life on this planet. >In the mid 1980s I found myself the only director of Greenpeace International with a formal education in science. >NASA tells us that “Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s Temperature” in child-like denial of the many other factors involved in climate change. >The world’s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, is hopelessly conflicted by its makeup and it mandate. The Panel is composed solely of the World Meteorological Organization, weather forecasters, and the United Nations Environment Program, environmentalists. Both these organizations are focused primarily on short-term timescales, days to maybe a century or two. But the most significant conflict is with the Panel’s mandate from the United Nations. They are required only to focus on “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the atmosphere, and which is in addition to natural climate variability.” So if the IPCC found that climate change was not being affected by human alteration of the atmosphere or that it is not “dangerous” there would be no need for them to exist. They are virtually mandated to find on the side of apocalypse. >And then there is the actual immense pile of filth fed to us more than three times daily by the green-media nexus, a seething cauldron of imminent doom, like we are already condemned to Damnation in Hell and there is little chance of Redemption. I fear for the end of the Enlightenment. I fear an intellectual Gulag with Greenpeace as my prison guards. >It is glaringly obvious that temperature and CO2 are in an inverse correlation at least as often as they are in any semblance of correlation. Two clear examples of reverse correlation occurred 150 million years and 50 million years ago. At the end of the Jurassic temperature fell dramatically while CO2 spiked. During the Eocene Thermal Maximum, temperature was likely higher than any time in the past 550 million years while CO2 had been on a downward track for 100 million years. This evidence alone sufficient to warrant deep speculation of any claimed lock-step causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. >A well-documented record of global temperature over the past 65 million years shows that we have been in a major cooling period since the Eocene Thermal Maximum 50 million years ago. The Earth was an average 16C warmer then, with most of the increased warmth at the higher latitudes. The entire planet, including the Arctic and Antarctica were ice-free and the land there was covered in forest. >The ancestors of every species on Earth today survived through what may have been the warmest time in the history of life. It makes one wonder about dire predictions that even a 2C rise in temperature from pre-industrial times would cause mass extinctions and the destruction of civilization. Glaciers began to form in Antarctica 30 million years ago and in the northern hemisphere 3 million years ago. Today, even in this interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age, we are experiencing one of the coldest climates in the Earth’s history.

>>98343 >The IPCC states it is “extremely likely” that human emissions have been the dominant cause of global warming “since the mid-20th century”, that is since 1950. They claim that “extremely” means 95% certain, even though the number 95 was simply plucked from the air like an act of magic. And “likely” is not a scientific word but rather indicative of a judgment, another word for an opinion. >There was a 30-year period of warming from 1910-1940, then a cooling from 1940 to 1970, just as CO2 emissions began to rise exponentially, and then a 30-year warming from 1970-2000 that was very similar in duration and temperature rise to the rise from 1910-1940. One may then ask “what caused the increase in temperature from 1910-1940 if it was not human emissions? And if it was natural factors how do we know that the same natural factors were not responsible for the rise between 1970-2000.” You don’t need to go back millions of years to find the logical fallacy in the IPCC’s certainty that we are the villains in the piece. >Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and is the only molecule that is present in the atmosphere in all three states, gas, liquid, and solid. As a gas, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but as a liquid and solid it is not. As a liquid water forms clouds, which send solar radiation back into space during the day and hold heat in at night. There is no possibility that computer models can predict the net effect of atmospheric water in a higher CO2 atmosphere. Yet warmists postulate that higher CO2 will result in positive feedback from water, thus magnifying the effect of CO2 alone by 2-3 times. Other scientists believe that water may have a neutral or negative feedback on CO2. The observational evidence from the early years of this century tends to reinforce the latter hypothesis. >How many politicians or members of the media or the public are aware of this statement about climate change from the IPCC in 2007? >“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” >There is a graph showing that the climate models have grossly exaggerated the rate of warming that confirms the IPCC statement. The only trends the computer models seem able to predict accurately are ones that have already occurred. They guess what we already know on the basis of the analysis of what we already know and it stops there. Anything else is speculation. Thanks for the projection. >It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today. Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. >We are witnessing the “Greening of the Earth” as higher levels of CO2, due to human emissions from the use of fossil fuels, promote increased growth of plants around the world. This has been confirmed by scientists with CSIRO in Australia, in Germany, and in North America. Only half of the CO2 we are emitting from the use of fossil fuels is showing up in the atmosphere. The balance is going somewhere else and the best science says most of it is going into an increase in global plant biomass. And what could be wrong with that, as forests and agricultural crops become more productive? >Here is the shocking news. If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today, a blink in nature’s eye, 0.05% of the 3.5 billion-year history of life. >It does boggle the mind in the face of our knowledge that the level of CO2 has been steadily falling that human CO2 emissions are not universally acclaimed as a miracle of salvation. From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming. >I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both. Does anyone deny that below 150 ppm CO2 that plants will die? Does anyone deny that the Earth has been in a 50 million-year cooling period and that this Pleistocene Ice Age is one of the coldest periods in the history of the planet? >If we assume human emissions have to date added some 200 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, even if we ceased using fossil fuels today we have already bought another 5 million years for life on earth. >Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it? Meanwhile, in NPC Land: >the one degree variashun is cozd by dee ebil yumanz and it des'royz aow blaned!!!!!!!!

>>98138 >>98140 >>98342 the biological danger of radioactive isotopes is determined by a combination of factors, not just their half-lives, and not just their nuclear properties. their chemical properties, i.e. the electron configuration, also play a major role. the electron configuration of cesium-137 makes it act as a metabolic analog to potassium when ingested and it gets mistakenly absorbed as a nutrient and stored in muscle tissue throughout the body, strontium-90 acts as a metabolic analog to calcium and gets stored in the bones, iodine-131 gets absorbed into the thyroid gland just like stable iodine does, etc. half-lives of unstable isotopes range anywhere from yoctoseconds to septillions of years and the "sweet spot" of half-lives that do the most damage to a living organism depend on what kinds of radiation the isotope is emitting. beta and gamma emitters absorbed into the body have to decay fast to do a lot of damage because most of the radiation passes straight through the body and exits without actually colliding with anything, so the "sweet spot" is in the range of 30 days to 50 years. Alpha-emitters can't penetrate the skin from outside the body but if they are ingested/inhaled and bioaccumulate in the tissue/bones they can do a lot of damage with slower decay rates because alpha particles always collide with something, so the "sweet spot" for maximum damage is more like 100 to 10,000 years. But most unstable isotopes emit a combination of alpha, beta, and/or gamma radiation and not just one type, so it's hard to come up with any general rule of thumb that can be applied to all of them.

Honestly in $CURRENT_YEAR I would like to see a project that uses SBC's or computers that run some kind of self sustained solar project while at same time mining XMR (Monero).

Ivan Illych's Tools for Conviviality provide a strong philosophical framework that underpins a lot of the free software movement and solarpunk/distributed technologies. Most people know about uncle ted even though he is not the most insightful philosopher on the subject of humanities relation to technology. Illych's work is optimistic and practical since he proposes guidelines which we can use to judge if a technology is healthy for people and their societies instead of promoting the complete destruction of all technology. I quote his description of this term below. >I choose the term “conviviality” to designate the opposite of industrial productivity. I intend it to mean autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environment; and this in contrast with the conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon them by others, and by a man-made environment. I consider conviviality to be individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and, as such, an intrinsic ethical value. I believe that, in any society, as conviviality is reduced below a certain level, no amount of industrial productivity can effectively satisfy the needs it creates among society’s members. If you like free software or solar/distributed tech then I think Illych provides the solid philosophical foundation these movements are based on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tools_for_Conviviality

>>98343 >>98344 >During an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot" and "I'm not stupid" before ending the interview. >In March 2019, Donald Trump tweeted about an interview Moore gave on the Fox News program Fox & Friends, where he denied that climate change was a threat.[32] Moore also opposed Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, which is a resolution that aims to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change in the US. Moore called Ocasio-Cortez a "twit" and suggested that global warming might be beneficial as carbon dioxide is a "building block of life".[46] In the ongoing dispute between Moore and Greenpeace, the group continued to distance itself from Moore and his claims and views, including his denial of climate change. >In 2010, Moore was recruited to represent the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), a multi-national accused by activist groups of widespread and illegal rainforest clearance practices, although this is strongly disputed by Moore. >The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure. >Moore was invited as the main speaker at the dinner hosted by EURACOAL on 2 February in Strasbourg entitled “Climate Demons or Climate Gods: Coal Industry Stakes Its Future”. >An EEF press officer confirmed to DeSmog UK that coal lobbyists EURACOAL invited Moore to speak. The Canadian climate science denier is known for promoting the idea that “We should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life it is”. >EURACOAL describes itself as “the voice of coal in Europe” and acts as an umbrella group for associations and research groups across 20 countries. >When asked whether EURACOAL paid for Moore to present that evening, Brian Ricketts, secretary-general of EURACOAL, told DeSmog UK: “Yes, you are correct. EURACOAL did cover Dr. Moore’s travel expenses from Canada and the time he devoted to preparing and giving his presentation to a small group in the European Parliament.” >“Unfortunately, I cannot disclose exactly what was paid [to] Dr. Moore as that would not be very professional,” he wrote via email. “However, it reflected c.5 days’ work for preparation time and long-haul travel.” >According to Moore’s agent’s site, it seems to cost between CAD$5,000 and $7,000 (£2,631 – £3,684) to have Moore speak at an event. lowlife charlatan

>>98431 LMAO >it's totally safe, you could drink it >no I'm not going to drink it, do you think I'm an idiot? >>98344 >>There is a graph Oh soykaf everyone, stop the presses, someone somewhere produced a graph! This Moore guy seems to produce bad-faith gotcha type arguments at an astonishing density, it's no wonder he's a darling of the industrialists. He's "JAQing it" in the purest possible way. >>98430 Holy based, I must learn more from this man.

>>96039 >That being said, deforestation is a good thing, it mean more agricultural production for humanity. No? Not only do you lose wildlife, you are vouching for a more homogeneous planet which is in my opinion worse place to live overall. It sounds like you don't appreciate forests as a place to visit which makes me wonder if you are an urbanite who has never been to one. Even if you don't plan to visit one anytime soon, you should consider that there are people who actually would think that it is a huge loss to humanity to lose its forests. Indeed, Britain has already been raped clean and hardly anyone thinks that its a good thing. Destroying the forests would also have ecological effects beyond what we currently know. To me it looks like you are advocating a dystopia where earth exists to extract resources in order to produce more capital. >The Eu parliament have no power and only exist to give an illusion of democracy to the will of the commission Wrong. Commission proposes initiatives and has zero (0) executive power. The council and the commission together have the executive power and the ability to amend, block and revise the initiatives. >[commission..] which is unelected wrong again >"The Council of the European Union, in agreement with the Commission’s President-elect, adopts a list of Commissioners-designate based on suggestions from EU Member States. Each nominee for a Commissioner must appear before the parliamentary committee with responsibility for his or her proposed portfolio. Committee members then vote on the nominee’s suitability for the position. The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission are then subject, as a body, to a vote of consent by the Parliament." >"They do want Europe to not have an agriculture anymore because it's bad for the planet or something and that's why they want to import it all, because cow farts aren't bad for the planet outside of the EU." All right, you can surely show me the initiatives or other plans that directly harm agriculture inside EU in order to combat global warming because to me it not only looks like we give massive sums to support agriculture within EU, we are a net exporter https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/eu-agri-food-trade-hits-new-records-2025-2026-03-13_en >>96275 >oppose any form of change that would serve mankind Remind me how much food is currently wasted in first world countries because of capitalist excess and profit seeking. Is there a food shortage? No there is not. You seem to think that poverty of third worlds have anything to do with food production which is hilarious. >>96840 You can play the game of "the models are never going to be 100% certain" all you want but to the best of humanity's current knowledge the greenhouse gases are warming up the planet and I don't think we should NOT invest in renewable energy because "well actually nothing might happen". Gambling with a hole planet because you want cheap energy NOW does not seem like a good policy to have. >>98430 Based. Need to read this

>>98430 >Ivan Illych's Tools for Conviviality provide a strong philosophical framework that underpins a lot of the free software movement and solarpunk/distributed technologies. Leaving aside the topic of how would computers run and who would build their parts (remember, industry bad), is he from the dungo crowd that says that piracy is harmless to IP holders? But I can get behind the concept of conviviality in our relation to technology. The vast majority of civilized and clever people likely want that, don't they? But that's just wanking because we do not have the control needed to achieve that and I hate to side with useful idiots who always try to upend their radicalism to the point they are the first ones lined against the walls by the people they blindly supported. >> and the intercourse of persons with their environment. Sorry?

>>98431 Funny how denying the cause of the climatic change is grossly distorted into a wholesale denial of the phenomenon, even when the person would acknowledge and change of climate. >OMG he got paid for his expertise!! Firstly, that's legitimate. Secondly, are you pretending that the entire charade club of climate alarmists who accuse the Western industrious man of destroying the world are not swimming in trillions of lobbying money while enjoying themselves the produce of that so called world wrecking civilization? Get a grip Greta. These people are the same who import millions of Hindus who use their own rivers as garbage dumps.

>>98430 I'm glad to see Ivan get mentioned here. I'd recommend other post-development writers too.

>>98450 I mean, it's pretty obvious that Patrick Moore has parlayed his reputation as the co-founder of Greenpeace into a very lucrative career of writing trashy fringe science-denial books and being a paid wage slave for the fossil fuel lobby and the logging industry and other rich powerful people who are destroying the world, he's a pathological liar and a sellout who betrayed absolutely everything he ever supposedly stood for, he's a complete and total fraud, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either extraordinarily stupid or is also a lying fraud. https://www.desmog.com/patrick-moore/

>>98450 Also his so-called "expertise" is quite suspect, as far as I can tell, Patrick Moore has never actually published any research in his entire life and his Ph.D. is in forestry, not in ecology as he insistently claims. His family has deep ties to the logging industry and his father Bill Moore was president of B.C. Truck Loggers Association and the Pacific Logging Congress, so it seems like what happened was he eventually got bored with his 1970s hippie environmentalist rebellious phase and ultimately decided to follow in his father's footsteps and use his family connections to kickstart his career, as nepo babies tend to do.

>>98449 >(remember, industry bad) I don't think the argument here is that industry is necessarily bad, more that if you let industry alienate people from the land and each other, it is bad. For example, you clearly need a large, well-organized operation and global trade networks to make computer chips of any decent quality. But you still have decisions to make about, for instance, how much impact you will have on the land, what kind of chips you will make and whether they will empower or constrain the user, whether you will share knowledge or hoard it, etc. >>98450 >are you pretending that the entire charade club of climate alarmists who accuse the Western industrious man of destroying the world are not swimming in trillions of lobbying money Are they? It was really easy to find proof of where this Moore guy gets his money from, can you post proof of where they get their money from? Everyone I know in that field used to be paid by the US federal government, but their grants have been getting cut.

>>98458 >Are they? Holy Shunt you even dared to ask. Look into EU's LIFE program GreenGate scandal for starters that involved Frans Timmermans, exposed by the Austrian newspaper eXXpress and Telegraaf. It's big. And you are definitely going to tell me that any American lobbyist or politician pushing for the green revolution hasn't been showered with green paper either. Moore might be an ambiguous man but that doesn't mean that him pointing out how the sky is blue should be considered fallacious simply because he said it. The countries that contribute the most to the rise of CO2 in the world are not the advanced ones, which are forced to destroy their own structures and economies through the traitorous Green Deal while people who never invented a tenth of the technology they now use contribute to the vast majority of that output that has reached about 3.3 trillion tonnes and live where the formerly disassembled industries are now reassembled, since the degrowth is only for a fraction of the planet while the overall industrial development is not even just stagnating but increasing. But don't you know? The Gulf Stream will die! Anyway, this entire scam is dying, and like for Covid, people are fed up of this. https://clintel.org/matt-ridley-thinks-the-climate-parrot-is-almost-dead/ https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/02/04/holocene-warming/ https://americanmind.org/salvo/manufacturing-consensus-on-climate-change/ (see chapter Birth of a Consensus) Here's an amusing one that briefly talks about Greenpeace and its communist infiltration: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/the_strategic_threat_from_netzero_emissions_.html

>>98454 Are you implying that an environmentalist would be against logging? Wasn't being green all about building log cabins not so long ago? As for the claim of a PhD in "ecology", that's just an informal way to state the field rather than the formal faculty's degree title, in this case UBC’s Faculty of Forestry. His thesis dealt with pollution. It's acceptable.

>>98468 I'm not going to engage with this, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the basic laws of physics to someone who argues in bad faith and already has their mind made up and has latched onto fringe discredited nonsense and refuses to accept the consensus of the entire scientific community no matter what facts are presented to them. Debates are for human beings with human brains that have genuine curiosity and a capacity for thinking and learning. You are not a human being, you are just a wind-up toy. There is no point in debating with you, there is no point to you at all.

>>98468 >The logging industry = living innawood in a log cabin WTF is your problem? And yes, logging at scale never was sustainable. https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/09/how-to-make-biomass-energy-sustainable-again/

>>98467 >Look into EU's LIFE program GreenGate scandal This one? https://www.politico.eu/article/fact-check-european-commission-ngo-lobby-green-deal-activist/ So, $15M of government money, which the government allocated specifically towards environmental causes, is being used to fund NGO's, some of which sue farmers for various reasons. How is this in any way related to your claim that people who do climate modeling are funded by "trillions" of lobbying money from vague, shadowy sources? >And you are definitely going to tell me that any American lobbyist or politician pushing for the green revolution hasn't been showered with green paper either. Politicians are a whole different breed, and lobbyists are funded by special interest groups almost by definition. The question here is about the scientists. Let's pick a specific person. Can you find who pays James Hansen's bills? Again, it was really easy to find dirt on Patrick Moore. >Moore might be an ambiguous man but that doesn't mean that him pointing out how the sky is blue should be considered fallacious simply because he said it. The reason his credibility is so suspect in the first place is that he says so many fallacious things. He's not pointing out that the sky is blue, he keeps saying things to the effect of "the sky is actually orange and it just *looks* blue, so anyway stop looking at the sky!" >The countries that contribute the most to the rise of CO2... ...and here we go again, you return to your canned talking points instead of addressing a direct question. >>98468 >Are you implying that an environmentalist would be against logging? yes, obviously.

>>98473 >The reason [Patrick Moore's] credibility is so suspect in the first place is that he says so many fallacious things. That and the very obvious conflict of interest in presenting oneself as an unbiased expert in environmental science whilst being on the payroll of companies such as EuraCoal and Asia Pulp & Paper.

>>98470 I am not him but if it is a consensus, then it is not scientific and if it is scientific then it is not a consensus. The green thing would be a lot less unpopular if people like you didn't had that "settled science" mindset. >>98473 >>98472 Wood is 50% carbon and somebody who oppose the logging industry is not somebody who want to remove carbon from the air. Yes, it is that simple. Environmentalists oppose it and I guess it's because they oppose everything that make money and because cutting trees look bad. Your mistake was to listen to such people.

>>98478 >if it's a consensus, its not scientific im not sure who told you this, but they were wrong. its true that there is a range of scientific predictions but they're in the lines of "how bad will it be and what mitigation steps are necessary" and not "what if all the evidence is fake?" the rest of your post is actually unparseable

>>98483 The experience is the only point of data that does not align with the scientific consensus. All the predictions made 10, 20 and 30 years ago were false. This somehow does not disturb the scientists who keep making the same predictions. That does not look like science to me. >the rest of your post is actually unparseable The wood industry produce 4 billions of cubic meters of wood per year. It weight 700kg per cubic meter and half of it is carbon. That mean that the logging industry extract 1 400 000 000 000kg of carbon form the atmosphere every year. The people who want us to sacrifice everything to reduce the PPM of carbon in the atmosphere do not want this industry to exist. The same people prevent the creation of nuclear power plants and force the ones who have already been built to close. I am not even going to pretend that this is about the climate. This is about power and control and I have no reason to tolerate this.

>>98485 >That mean that the logging industry extract 1 400 000 000 000kg of carbon form the atmosphere every year. You mean to say that the trees do? The logging industry is releasing carbon in to the air by the logging process and the are destroying the very things that could keep binding that carbon from the air. Less trees = less carbon extracted from air.

>>98485 >All the predictions made 10, 20 and 30 years ago were false Sauce? >That mean that the logging industry extract 1 400 000 000 000kg of carbon form the atmosphere every year. At what cost? The trucks and other logging machinery don't run on wood power. Not to mention that a lot of that wood is burned rapidly (fuel, but also paper, furnitures and boards), or used to replace things that burned (boards and lumber). The only proper stat I could find on that is that about 25% of wood production is used as fuel (that isn't counting wood product burned after they fulfiled their primary purpose). Carbon sequestration requires deep burial, which is rarely done and not economically profitable. Industry, no matter which, is antinomic to ecology. Some are less bad than others, and lumber is miles better than steel or concrete, but none of it is sustainable.

>>98485 >All the predictions made 10, 20 and 30 years ago were false. I think you're the one saying things that don't align with my direct experience. On a tangentially related note: Corpus Christi might soon be the first major city in the US to become uninhabitable due to running out of water, due to stupid policies and head-in-sand management practices. Literally their only hope is to be hit with a big early-season hurricane.

>>98485 Again, your post makes zero sense, in fact the data you cite undermines your own argument. Living trees are not part of the atmosphere, which should be obvious. It should also be obvious that they in fact remove CO2 from the atmosphere, unless of course you chop them down and burn them like the logging industry does.

>>98503 the "co2 is good for trees!" argument is pretty retarded all-around and plays to the general public's ignorance about the planetary oxygen cycle, i.e. the common belief that trees and plants do all the work of turning co2 into oxygen when in fact it's really the ocean, the big blue thing that covers most of the planet and its vast ecosystem of phytoplankton and cyanobacteria and other marine organisms that plays a much larger role, the marine ecosystem that is currently being endangered by excess co2 dissolving into seawater and making the ocean more acidic, which causes the erosion of calcic materials like coral reefs and shellfish, disrupting the food chain and causing even higher co2 levels, etc.

>>98505 what's particularly infuriating about people like patrick moore is, he's an educated man, he has a phd, a phd in forestry sure, but a phd nonetheless; surely he cannot be stupid enough to believe in the things he says, surely he has enough of understanding of science to know how dumb a statement like "plants eat co2 therefore the more co2 the better!" is. just ad he knows that drinking a glass of roundup weed killer is not actually a good idea and refused to actually do it to back up his claims. he's just a liar, a conman, a charlatan. there was a time when people like him would be tarred and feathered and i think we should bring that custom back.

>>98503 Without the logging industry, the trees eventually die in the forest and decay, after a few years the carbon is released. With the logging industry, we can generate heat with 0 C02 impact, have eco friendlt building materials and if we want we can burry the trees to remove the CO2. Why are you ignoring that this industry have to plant the trees and make them grow?

>>98507 that would necessitate that the ecosystem's handling of it somehow produces more emissions than are released when an entire forest is chopped and then shipped all over the world for a small fraction to be recycled or used in an otherwise ecologically sustainable manner. As you hopefully understand, most homes are no longer build from wood but rather from metal, bricks, stone, etc. Tree farms and other agricultural projects are worse for the environment than old growth forests in much the same way, having extremely low biodiversity they tend to lack the scavengers that feed off of decaying biomatter and can cause food chain breakdown in addition to the plants they consist of having much lower threshold to absorb carbon than old growth. Not to mention how the demand simply does not exist for tree farms to replace rainforests, most of that land will be used for monocropping with oil-derived pesticides and fertilizer. You of course know all of this already, you simply don't care about the truth because of your tribalistic commitments against environmentalism, or because you believe yourself to be so much smarter than others that you can make any argument you please.

>>98508 >You of course know all of this already bold of you to assume that they didn't just latch on to the first possible justification, however ridiculous, that popped in to their little pea brain

>>98509 true. It's a genre of argument I've seen before, where one begins to acquire systems intelligence and then expects that the other lacks this kind of thinking and is not capable of engaging with the systems *they* think about. It is of course entirely a projection. Just wait until they find out where "systems theory" originates.

> As you hopefully understand, most homes are no longer build from wood but rather from metal, bricks, stone, etc. All those materials hurt the environement much more than wood. Do you want to protect the biodiversity at the cost of us living in huts and with only a primitive technology or at the cost of a more destructive industry than logging? Personally, I would rather give a good life to the people than to the bugs. >Tree farms and other agricultural projects are worse for the environment than old growth forests in much the same way The goal is to serve people, not the environement, but if that is your priority, then what is best for the environement, more logging and less plastic, concrete and other artificial materials or the opposite? >most of that land will be used for monocropping with oil-derived pesticides and fertilizer. Yes, mankind will gain millions of tons of food per year from deforestation. As worldwide population increase, so should food production. Would you rather have worldwide population control, force poor people to not eat meat or adapt the food production to our needs?

>>98532 >The goal is to serve people, not the environement I'd rather 1 billion people live in a world with real, living forests than 10 billion people live in a grey wasteland dotted with strip malls and tree farms. Of course, if things continue the way they are, by the end of the century we might have 1 billion people living in a grey wasteland. Best of both worlds, right?

>>98474 Did he claim being unbiased? Or more exactly, did he even attempt to hide some of his ties of these companies? Were disclaimers found to be missing?

>>98473 >So, $15M of government money, which the government allocated specifically towards environmental causes It didn't do just that. >How is this in any way related to your claim that people who do climate modeling are funded by "trillions" of lobbying money from vague, shadowy sources? It is an example. I would also rephrase my sentence because it was incomplete. It's the full costs and lobbying. The industry and the lobbying themselves have over the many years, across the entire globe, swallowed up enormous amounts of GDP wealth, based on the peddling of a fallacious premise of man-made world heating. All the policies we have been forced to go through in the Western world for more than a decade which have incurred massive costs, taxes and unnecessary restructurings. A study found, conveniently, that we supposedly owe no less than $192 Trillion to mostly soykaf holes because we caused climate change and hit mother Nature in the feels. Which means that unless this entire joke is reversed, our politicians will be all too glad to continue gutting our nations for the profit of a vast majority of backwater countries or countries that do not need any help at all and should, for some of them, even be considered to be culprits, and that despite the intensity of climatic catastrophes has plateaued for a decade. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rich-nations-owe-192-trillion-for-causing-climate-change-new-analysis-finds/ The OECD goal of 100 billion a year has been surpassed. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/climate-finance-and-the-usd-100-billion-goal.html https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/finance-and-investment-for-climate-goals.html >At the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) of the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries committed to a collective goal of mobilising USD 100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. The goal was formalised at COP16 in Cancun, and at COP21 in Paris, it was reiterated and extended to 2025. >At the request of donor countries, the OECD has been tracking progress towards this goal since 2015. It produces regular analyses of progress made, based on a robust accounting framework that is consistent with the COP24 outcome agreed by all Parties to the Paris Agreement on funding sources and financial instruments. >Released on 29 May 2024: The OECD’s seventh assessment of progress towards the UNFCCC goal finds that in 2022 developed countries provided and mobilised a total of USD 115.9 billion in climate finance for developing countries, exceeding the annual USD 100 billion goal for the first time. This achievement occurs two years later than the original 2020 target year, but one year earlier than in projections produced by the OECD prior to COP26. That's the donations alone. We're not even covering the legal and complex infrastructure costs and all the taxation these donor countries went through. >Public climate finance (bilateral and multilateral attributable to developed countries) accounted for close to 80% of the total in 2022 and increased from USD 38 billion in 2013 to USD 91.6 billion in 2022. >Following a small drop in 2021, adaptation finance reached USD 32.4 billion in 2022, three times the 2016 level. Mitigation continued to account for the majority, representing 60% of the total. >Private finance mobilised by public climate finance grew by 52%, following several years of relative stagnation. We're in 2026. I don't feel like insulting your intelligence by doing a quick corner of the napkin calculation here. The full report below. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/climate-finance-provided-and-mobilised-by-developed-countries-in-2013-2022_19150727-en/full-report.html Here's the full list of nations that were considered developed back then, based on the union of UNFCCC Annex II parties, all current EU member states, plus Liechtenstein and Monaco: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States And now the countries that got all the nice free cash, based on OECD's DAC list of ODA recipients (2022): DAC List of ODA Recipients Effective for reporting on 2022 and 2023 flows Least Developed Countries Bhutan (LM), Burkina Faso (L), Burundi (L), Cambodia (LM), Central African Republic (L), Chad (L), Comoros (LM), Democratic Republic of the Congo (L), Djibouti (LM), Eritrea (L), Ethiopia (L), Gambia (L), Guinea (L), Guinea-Bissau (L), Haiti (LM), Kiribati (LM), Lao People's Democratic Republic (LM), Lesotho (LM), Liberia (L), Madagascar (L), Malawi (L), Mali (L), Mauritania (LM), Mozambique (L), Myanmar (LM), Nepal (LM), Niger (L), Rwanda (L), Sao Tome and Principe (LM), Senegal (LM), Sierra Leone (L), Solomon Islands (LM), Somalia (L), South Sudan (L), Sudan (L), Tanzania (LM), Timor-Leste (LM), Togo (L), Tuvalu (UM), Uganda (L), Yemen (L), Zambia (LM) Low Income Countries which are not LDCs Afghanistan (L), Angola (LM), Bangladesh (LM), Benin (LM) Lower Middle Income Countries and Territories which are not LDCs (per capita GNI $1 046–$4 095 in 2020) Algeria, Belize, Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Eswatini, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tokelau, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan Upper Middle Income Countries and Territories which are not LDCs (per capita GNI $4 096–$12 695 in 2020) Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Montserrat, Namibia, Nauru, Niue, North Macedonia, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines (listed above in LM group as well), Saint Helena, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe (listed above in LDC group), Serbia, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu (listed above as UM), Venezuela, Viet Nam, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank and Gaza Strip

>>98473 Another look at costs: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00220-x >Climate finance flows reached an annual average of USD 1.3 trillion in 2021/2022, according to Climate Policy Initiative estimates, almost doubling 2019/2020 level. However, the finance gap remains huge: global investments needed to mitigate climate change exceeds USD 8.4 trillion per year by 2030 according to one credible estimate. It is imperative that we accelerate innovative strategies through global efforts to fill this gap. >To fill the climate finance gap, there are two main challenges. First is the uneven distribution of climate investments worldwide (shown in Fig. 1). Only one-third of the total energy investments and 20% of global investments in clean energy technologies are directed toward EMDEs outside China, even though these regions account for two-thirds of the world’s population. Rapid economic growth in EMDEs would, without systemic change in energy systems, be driven by massive reliance on fossil fuel-based energy systems. This means that by 2030 if the world is on track to meet global climate goals, as much as 40% of emission reduction opportunities would be in EMDEs other than China. In contrast, one-third of mitigation opportunities would be in China and one-quarter from advanced economies. The idea that this would happen worldwide without copious amounts of lobbying, political backhanding and even corruption is entirely stupid. The portion of that money that flows towards those nations to make them our equals is simply not staying home to keep us afloat and above, and when it stays home it's precisely used for mitigation and some other nonsense. All because fossil fuels are said to be killing the planet and other silly things. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Global-Landscape-of-Climate-Finance-2023.pdf >International finance increased by 35% from 2019/2020, largely due to enhanced commitments from developed economies. Developed economies committed 84% of international finance, while emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), including China, committed 13%. South-South climate finance accounted for under 2% of total flows. A lot of the domestic spending is largely due to legal constraints forcing people to move to anything deemed ecofriendly so that an old house made of multiple layers of stone, old wood and what essentially amounts to dried dirt, pollutes much less in its entire existence that a mere modern one does to create its components and move them around to the site of assembly. >The question here is about the scientists. The first Solarpunk thread had an interesting case of blatant corruption. https://archive.ph/aFFkO https://web.archive.org/web/20241214225113/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/78190.html This is post 84693: Gavin Schmidt >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_inimzcMWW0 >https://principia-scientific.com/top-nasa-climate-scientist-uses-private-email-to-avoid-oversight/ >Climate change warriors, particularly scientists, get a free pass on everything. >They are not subject to libel laws, scientific integrity rules, copyright law, etc. For example, everyone in the entire German science hierarchy has been notified of serious corruption in German climate science by German climate scientist Gerrit Lohmann and the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI), among others, but none have even responded and it has never been mentioned in the mainstream media even in Germany. >Stefan Rahmstorf has also tried silencing tactics (admittedly much lamer ones), on American journalists who dare question climate change, particularly Bret Stephens, now of the New York Times. >This climate-change warrior free pass also seems to protect some government officials — in particular ex-NASA GISS’s James Hansen and current NASA GISS’s Gavin Schmidt — from prosecution for violations of the Hatch Act, which forbids government officials from spending government time and money on political activities. >These climate change warriors, particularly the scientists, are treated like infallible gods, which explains RealClimatologists.org’s motto “If Global Warming Is Irrefutable, It’s Not Science, It’s Religion”. For us, it’s also about religion because it’s a shame to see scientists sell their souls. And post 84965: >And here's a PDF that fact checks the fact checking raised against the study and article published by Alex Newman. >https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fact-check-fact-check.pdf Overall, going back to these old threads is rather refreshing and guards us from the classical reboot operated here. >Can you find who pays James Hansen's bills? Again, it was really easy to find dirt on Patrick Moore. He moved to being in support of a specific industry, which in no way automatically means what he says is false. You can call that dirt all you want but again as one of the few people who combined skepticism and notoriety, he was a prime candidate of being recruited. As long as the association is known and made clear, it is not an issue. What is is the validity of the claims, or dismissing them simply because of a guilt by association. >The reason his credibility is so suspect in the first place is that he says so many fallacious things. He's not pointing out that the sky is blue, he keeps saying things to the effect of "the sky is actually orange and it just *looks* blue, so anyway stop looking at the sky!" Is pointing out that some far flung historical periods have seen some long term cooling despite higher levels of CO2, or the opposite, like claiming the sky is orange? Shouldn't the claim be challenged on scientific grounds instead? >...and here we go again, you return to your canned talking points instead of addressing a direct question. Sorry then but what question?

>>98470 >I'm not going to engage with this, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the basic laws of physics to someone who argues in bad faith So now i'm denying the laws of physics. Your attempt at ridicule is ridiculous in itself. >already has their mind made up and has latched onto fringe discredited nonsense and refuses to accept the consensus of the entire scientific community The party that would like it to be a consensus of the entire scientific community keeps repeating that it's a consensus of the entire scientific community. https://lainchan.org/hum/res/78190.html Post 84691 from the very first thread is very useful here for our local commissar. Just a few quotations. >“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview. >When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions. >According to the study’s authors, including urban data sets results in an artificial upward skewing of temperatures due to the well-known “urban heat island” effect that must be taken into account. >Basically, cities tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and structures, so temperature stations that had cities grow up around them will show artificial temperature increases caused by the urbanization rather than global warming. I bet they didn't tell you that? It's like those small thermal stations installed right at the end of active landing strips so that their reports always skew up because of the airplanes' exhaust keeps heating them up. Very scientific. >“The definition of climate change was distorted in 1992 in a way that is incompatible with science,” the geophysicist explained, pointing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its exclusion of natural causes from the definition of climate change. >Acknowledging that he had not had time to read the new paper or carefully review the latest IPCC report, the world-renowned climatologist told The Epoch Times that the UN’s models cannot even reproduce the natural variations of the last 150 years, such as the natural warming during the first half of the 20th century. >“They also overdo the warming of the last 40 years, again, not matching the real world,” he said. >When contacted about the new paper, Gavin Schmidt, who serves as acting senior advisor on climate at NASA and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was also blunt. >“This is total nonsense that no one sensible should waste any time on,” he told The Epoch Times. >He did not respond to a follow-up request for specific errors of fact or reasoning in the new RAA paper. >However, even Schmidt, a leading proponent of the man-made warming hypothesis, has conceded that the IPCC’s models have been inaccurate. Hey, another PhD! Go after them! you will surely find there too that this Connolly fella is very much unreliable.

>>98543 I told you I'm not going to engage, why are you continuing with this? You're like a horny retarded dog that keeps humping the air after being kicked off someone's leg.

>>98486 By the logging process, you mean the use of machines to run logging companies? Unless the wood is literally consumed and burnt up, the carbon that got sequestrated remains under solid form. Have you now considered the cost of producing the concrete for these gigantic wind farms for starters? >>98487 >At what cost? The trucks and other logging machinery don't run on wood power. As you have said, no industry does. So how is that a point? But growing trees benefits directly from releasing CO2. It's almost a virtuous circle. >Not to mention that a lot of that wood is burned rapidly (fuel, but also paper, furnitures and boards A portion is, and again, it fuels back into helping other trees grow worldwide. >The only proper stat I could find on that is that about 25% of wood production is used as fuel That I can confirm through my own research. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Wood_products_-_production_and_trade >Almost a quarter (24 %) of the EU's roundwood production in 2022 was used as fuelwood, while the remainder was industrial roundwood mostly used for sawnwood and veneers or for pulp and paper production. >Trade of roundwood presents for the EU in 2022 a net balance of 12 billion m³ (Figure 6). >Trade of fuelwood shows a different picture (see Figure 7). Total imports have been declining since 2015 reaching 2.9 million m³ in 2022, whereas imports coming from non-EU states reached slightly more than 1 million m³. The rise in fuelwood export however is mild over the past three years, still not reaching the 2015 level. In 2022, exports of fuelwood account for 4.6 million m³ including exports to non-EU countries of 481 thousand m³. The net balance of fuel wood trade is 1.7 million m³. It's seven times less than the round wood trade. IOW most of EU's wood is not used for fuel. https://www.economyinsights.com/p/global-timber-consumption-per-year This one provides bigger figures for fuel wood but it's still significantly lower than all other uses. >>98503 >Again, your post makes zero sense, in fact the data you cite undermines your own argument. Living trees are not part of the atmosphere, which should be obvious. You don't make much effort to understand it. Trees need to grow and build mass, that's when the sequestration of carbon dioxide happens. >>98505 >>98506 >the "co2 is good for trees!" argument is pretty retarded all-around It obviously is not once you understand when the sequestration happens the most. >surely he cannot be stupid enough to believe in the things he says, surely he has enough of understanding of science to know how dumb a statement like "plants eat co2 therefore the more co2 the better!" is. Demonstrate how dumb it is then. From what do you think trees build their mass? Fairy dust maybe? >just ad he knows that drinking a glass of roundup weed killer is not actually a good idea and refused to actually do it to back up his claims. That was frankly silly from him. There's also the aspect that what he used to say twenty years ago is different from what he decided to defend fifteen or ten years ago. A man can be relatively honest but then take a turn for the worse within a few years and come out truly terrible. It needs to be said that he had already made the claim of this substance being drinkable before the interview, hence why Moreira had a glass with him and likely some roundup there too, for the sake of trapping Moore at his own outlandish claims, at that time. >>98507 >Without the logging industry, the trees eventually die in the forest and decay, after a few years the carbon is released. It takes more than a few years for this to happen. This also happens next to other plants and trees that directly benefit from the CO2 release.

>>98544 I'd rather hear about sound and solid arguments than witness your grandiose and dramatic exit. Alas, you have chosen the latter. Have a nice day.

>>98546 I'm still here. There are other people here aside from you, you're not the central focus of this discussion. I'm still interested in talking to other people about solarpunk stuff, it's just you I'm not interested in. I'm going to continue engaging with the other people and not engage with you and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

>>98549 >I'm still here. There are other people here aside from you, you're not the central focus of this discussion. I'm still interested in talking to other people about solarpunk stuff, it's just you I'm not interested in. I'm going to continue engaging with the other people and not engage with you and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Well, a pity then, but be assured that your impotent dismissal of my documented points is assuredly as transparent to me as it is to the "other people" and... will be to anyone else who comes to this comfy place and parses this.

>>98542 >>Can you find who pays James Hansen's bills? >Sorry then but what question? you quoted it in your post. If your rhetorical strategy was to just dump as much of your talking points as possible that it's not worth anybody's time to go through all of it, congratulations, it worked. A credulous moron might read this thread and conclude that because you posted the most words and linked the most web pages, you won.

>>98558 >If your rhetorical strategy was to just dump as much of your talking points as possible that it's not worth anybody's time to go through all of it, congratulations, it worked. They call this "sealioning."

>>98564 no, sealioning is when you hound someone to engage in debate when they don't want to. The correct term for this is "Gish gallop", after a guy who was famously good at it.

>>98558 >you quoted it in your post. Fine. I don't pretend knowing every person involved in the entire climate debate. What should I know about James Hansen? You brought this person here, explain your point. More importantly, why should I have to dig even more information about him when you don't even bother reading what I already provided that was very much on topic already? >If your rhetorical strategy was to just dump as much of your talking points as possible that it's not worth anybody's time to go through all of it My "strategy" is just to counter the nonsense you pull out of that hole, darkly yours. Your brief half‑truths require long arguments to expose their incompleteness. Anyhow, how can you know it's not worth going through my "talking points" if you even refuse to look at a portion of them? You're dishonest and afraid. I admit to my mistakes, but when I present facts, you reject them as "words!" So be it then, but don't complain, you have no right to do so. You hope to win arguments with snappy tweets and that's it. You act like a terminal tourist by coming to a place where people write a lot, which drives you mad when you're met with paragraphs, despite the local rule being that we are required to properly substantiate our points, which you either ignore or don't understand. >A credulous moron might read this thread and conclude that because you posted the most words and linked the most web pages, you won. Don't generalize, you're the only person sufficiently deluded here to believe that denial of debate is valid way of argumentation. A smart person would at least read a few lines and look at the graphs and understand that it is relevant and then may want to look more into it. You doubted the lobbying and corruption, or the cost of this whole global green subversion, I gave some samples and sources which are reasonably sized without exploding in size. You're free to address them if you can. I doubt you will though, you are not interested in proper debating, that's the fact of the matter here since you entered a series of thread in its fourth incarnation while ignoring all that has been pointed out already during three former iterations. Instead of engaging the discourse on scientific grounds you rely on ad hominems and then pretend being all about defending the laws of physics without once demonstrating one inch of inclination to back your arguments with due respect to such laws. As the aphorism goes, a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. If sentences offend you, stick to TikTok and keep scrolling.

>>98574 >what should I know about James Hansen? He's probably the most famous climate scientist and one of the original climate activists. You would know who he is if you were actually informed about this grand conspiracy. Who writes his paychecks? Does he get flown out to fancy dinners where he rubs shoulders with CEOs and MPs? >More importantly, why should I have to dig even more information about him "Even more information" about a person you've never heard of? Are you a bot? >what I already provided that was very much on topic already? If by that you mean you reposted infodumps from the last thread, then sure, I suppose it's "on topic". >I gave some samples and sources which are reasonably sized without exploding in size. Three extremely long posts in response to a two relatively short ones is what I would call "exploding in size", especially when most of the things you say are only just barely connected to the posts you're replying to. Maybe in the future I'll have three hours to go through everything you've posted and debunk anything fallacious, which I suspect is most of it, just due to your argument style. It would be a colossal waste of time, but I've been known to waste my time.

>>98575 >He's probably the most famous climate scientist and one of the original climate activists. He's just one among many and I usually focus on the macroscopic aspect of the stories and the science behind the claims, not who did this or that, especially a long time ago. But since name dropping seems more important to you than neutral scientific discourse, what is the accusation then? Did he make fallacious claims? Is he using debunked evidence or anything like that? >Who writes his paychecks? Does he get flown out to fancy dinners where he rubs shoulders with CEOs and MPs? You tell me. >"Even more information" about a person you've never heard of? Are you a bot? I'm asking a simple question. Please answer it. >If by that you mean you reposted infodumps from the last thread, then sure, I suppose it's "on topic". Not everything was reposted from the older thread. You're not proving it's wrong, you're only dodging. >Three extremely long posts in response to a two relatively short ones is what I would call "exploding in size" I don't care. Prove them wrong. It's not because a question or a false claim is only one sentence long that the answer or the correction should be just as short. And then again you're dodging. >especially when most of the things you say are only just barely connected to the posts you're replying to. They are 100% connected, unless you care to prove the disconnect. For example, you said "the question here is about the scientists" and I precisely fetched fully relevant information, in this case, about a number of scientists exposing biases and fraud in their own cultural and scientific area of expertise. You haven't addressed any of this and it's just a small quantity of lines only. Instead of acknowledging the information or debating it, you're throwing smoke screen after smoke screen. How long do you intend on doing that exactly? Similarly, when I pointed out the issues regarding the GreenGate and Timmermans, the WEF compliant man behind the EU's environment policies (so just a nobody), you dismissed them. Of course if I were to post some links and quote the relevant sections you would once again dismiss the information and complain about me posting words. And words you will get anyway. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/eu-parliament-inquiry-climate-ngo-lobby-scandal/ >The goal is to investigate allegations made public by Dutch media months ago that, under the leadership of former EU Climate Czar Frans Timmermans, the EU Commission has paid at least €750 million to climate NGOs to lobby lawmakers both in Brussels and in the capitals on behalf of the disastrous Green Deal, casting doubts on the legitimacy of the entire flagship legislative package. The sum talked about right above might be an extrapolation, but even if ten percent of it proved to be offending, we'd still be looking at a 75 million euros issue. The journalists saw incomplete or hard to interpret records in documents that should be complete, accurate and easy to read. Part of the scandal involves claims of contracts stroke in secrecy, which I suppose doesn't reflect well on the sacrosanct democracy. >The payments were distributed through the ‘LIFE’ program, which has a budget of €5.4 billion, raising concerns about how much more taxpayer money may have been illegally or unethically distributed to influence EU decision-making against the public interest. Here's more material to look into. The first one accuses the Commission of misusing taxpayer money and breaching institutional neutrality, and cites the TAE criminal complaint and media investigations, and calls for prosecutions and reforms. https://brusselswatch.org/frans-timmermans-architect-of-the-eu-green-deal-corruption-scandal/ https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2023/02/16/with-friends-like-these-the-eu-needs-no-enemies/ Doubtless, the EU will attempt to defuse this and turn this breach of neutrality and transparency as a nothingburger. This affair needs to be properly wrapped. Last July the accusations went as far as claiming that up to 7 billion euros had been misused in a similar way: https://brusselswatch.org/european-taxpayers-association-files-complaint-against-two-ex-commissioners-over-ngo-funding/ >The most explosive claims hinge on the amount and destination of funds. Between 2019 and 2024, €4.8 billion was granted by the European Commission and a further €2.6 billion by member states, for a total exceeding €7 billion. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) issued a report in April that sharply criticized the Commission’s “opaque” practices and highlighted a lack of reliable information about how money was disbursed and spent by NGOs. Astonishingly, of more than 4,400 recipient NGOs, just 30 reportedly received over 40%—or €3.3 billion—of the allocated funds over a ten-year period. >The ECA further found that for the 2021–2023 window, over 90% of funding recipients—amounting to upwards of 70,000 organizations—were not clearly labeled as NGOs in official records, underscoring the EU’s inadequate oversight of its own criteria for NGO status. Some people argued that this wasn't much of a problem, that transparency was sufficiently maintained. The joke being that some of that money would have allegedly been used against international trade deals the EU was in favor of, such as Mercosur, which just highlights how schizophrenic this has gotten. What can I say? You will just ignore this as unimportant I suppose. >Maybe in the future I'll have three hours to go through everything you've posted and debunk anything fallacious, which I suspect is most of it You could only know for sure if you actually bothered reading even just one bit. I assure you, you would not need three hours, not even one, unless you're a very slow reader. Maybe next time you should refrain from making awkward claims if you can't handle the consequences. If you're only interested in small quips, stick to social networks.

when a photon hits an o2 molecule, it causes a vibration where the two atoms move together and apart, stretching and contracting their elastic-like chemical bond with perfect symmetry, their movements canceling each other out and thus causing no change in electric polarity, so the photon has nothing to electrically interact with and thus it does not get absorbed and transfer its energy to the oxygen molecule. when a photon hits a co2 molecule, there are multiple possible vibrational modes - the oxygen atoms can move away from and toward the carbon atom in the center which causes both bonds to stretch and contract symmetrically; the oxygen atoms can move one way while the carbon atom moves the opposite way which causes the bonds to stretch asymmetrically; and the carbon atom can move laterally relative to the oxygen atoms, causing the bonds to bend asymmetrically. these asymmetric stretches and bends cause momentary changes in electric polarity, which allows the photon to electrically interact with the molecule and be absorbed and transfer its energy into it as heat. that is why co2 is a greenhouse gas, that is why climate change is real, it's very basic physics and it's very easy to test and well-proven and has been established scientific fact since the 1800s, long before we even know what atoms were made of. conversation over.

addendum: when a co2 molecule bends, the carbon atom moving perpendicular to the oxygen atoms, this particular vibrational mode of this particular molecule has a frequency of about 20 terahertz, in other words the electic polarity of the molecule flips back and forth at a rate of about 20 trillion times per second, which is a wavelength of about 15 micrometers. if you look at a chart of the electromagnetic spectrum you'll see that 15 micrometers sits around the middle of the infrared band. so when co2 molecules vibrate, they just happen to vibrate right at the ideal frequency/wavelength for interaction with and absorption of infrared photons, the thermal radiation that the earth emits as it sheds heat absorbed from the sun. gaseous h2o, i.e. water vapor, is an even stronger heat absorber than co2 due to being an asymmetric polyatomic molecule with all kinds of vibrational modes over a broad range of frequencies, but gaseous h2o is in a high energy state in earth's atmosphere and it soon loses energy and drops to its lowest energy state, liquid water, and falls out of the atmosphere as rain, so water vapor levels in the atmosphere tend to remain relatively stable regardless of human activity. when co2 is added to the atmosphere it is already in its lowest possible energy state so it will stay in the atmosphere indefinitely until it reacts with something that can add energy to it to turn it into something else, such as biological life using it for photosynthesis and converting some of it to carbohydrates and the ocean's surface dissolving it and converting some of it into carbonic acid, but the carbon cycle is extremely slow compared to the water cycle and humans are adding co2 to the atmosphere far, far faster than the planet can remove it. the combustion of any hydrocarbon compound produces co2 and water vapor as the primary byproducts and it is important to remember that the hydrocarbons alone are not the entirety of the reactants - the combustion reaction pulls lots of oxygen from the air and uses that as fuel as well - so the mass of the byproducts ends up being greater than the mass of the original hydrocarbons. for example, a complete perfect combustion of methane gas, ch4, the simplest and therefore most clean-burning of hydrocarbons, with 100% conversion of the reactants, will produce 275% of the original fuel mass in co2 and 225% in water vapor. this is the best case scenario when it comes to burning hydrocarbons for energy - most of the hydrocarbons we burn for energy are not nearly as simple as methane, things like coal and gasoline and diesel fuel, which don't burn as efficiently and leave behind lots of unburned residue and produce lots of extraneous and often hazardous byproducts in addition to the co2 and water vapor. but no matter how clean-burning and efficient the hydrocarbon fuel is, you will always end up producing lots and lots of co2 and water vapor when you burn it to release its energy and there is no way around this, when the hydrocarbon bonds are broken the free carbon and oxygen atoms in their high energy state must come together to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. this is why carbon dioxide in particular is the primary topic of concern when it comes to climate change, it is a highly effective infrared heat absorber, under normal terrestial conditions it is thermodynamically stable and highly inert and stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and modern industry produces gigatons of it a year and more of it every year as industry continues to expand. in 1926 co2 levels constituted 0.03% of the atmosphere; in 2026 co2 levels have increased to 0.043% of the atmosphere. i know that doesn't seem like a very big number, but a 143% increase in co2 level within a span of only 100 years is tremendous, not the kind of change that you normally see in nature, outside of huge global cataclysms like supervolcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. and yes, the earth as a whole can and will survive and adapt to such extreme changes and it has many times before, but we humans are just one tiny little insignificant part of the earth and our species, and especially our civilization and way of life as we know it now, require very specific and highly stable conditions to survive. the earth isn't going to turn into the planet venus and roast us all to death, it's not going to turn into a barren desert where nothing can ever grow again, there's not going to be hurricanes the size of continents and tidal waves and floods of biblical proportions, but it is going to undergo significant changes in a relatively short timeframe, changes that we simply do not have the resources and responsiveness to adapt to as a huge lumbering inertia-laden society with very complex needs.

on the subject of nuclear energy, things get much more complicated. we're no longer dealing with just the electrical force that holds molecules together, we are also dealing with the much more powerful nuclear forces that hold atoms together, we have now entered the realm of the 20th century understanding of physics, the rutherford model and nuclear force and isotopes and things of that nature. with modern technology and knowledge of physics, the only feasible method we have of harnessing the nuclear force as a source of energy is nuclear fission, which involves finding huge heavy unstable atoms made of lots and lots of protons and neutrons clumped together that are just on the verge of breaking apart and hitting them with a neutron to make them break. i won't go into the dangers of harnessing nuclear energy because that's been discussed to death, instead i just want to talk about just the logistics and sustainability of it, which i think is something that is often overlooked and overshadowed by the other concerns. these kinds of unstable heavy elements are not very common in nature, heavier elements are rarer because even stars do not have have enough energy to fuse them together, they can only be formed by extremely energetic reactions like the big bang or supernova explosions or stellar collisions, and most of them are unstable isotopes with short half-lives that quickly decay into lighter and more stable isotopes. when our solar system was formed 4 billion years ago it was full of unstable isotopes but now most of them have decayed and the only ones remaining are ones with long half-lives. for an isotope to be usable as fuel for fission reactions, it needs to be unstable enough to be fissile, to break apart when hit by a slow neutron, yet not so unstable that all of it has decayed away by now and can no longer be found in nature. the only natural isotope that fits this bill is uranium-235 which has a half-life of 700 million years so there is still a little bit left of it in nature, it comprises about 0.7% of the natural uranium in earth's crust, the other 99.3% being the more stable uranium-238 which is not fissile. if everyone in the world switched to nuclear power for all of their energy needs, based on our current rate of energy usage, we would deplete the entire global reserves of uranium-235 in about a decade. after that, the only fissile isotopes left on earth will be the leftover byproducts of our fission reactors that we keep in storage facilities, such as plutonium-239. we have recently began to develop fast neutron reactors which can achieve fission with abundant and ordinarily non-fissile isotopes like uranium-238 and thorium-232 that we would probably never run out of, but to get those fast neutrons you need a tremendous amount of energy, i.e. you either need an initial slow neutron fission reaction with a minimum critical mass of those rare finite isotopes, or you need a giant particle accelerator powered by another running nuclear reactor. if ever there is some kind of major disruption to civilization, such as a nuclear war or some other big global catastrophe, and all the reactors stop running and all the fissile material is exhausted, destroyed, or inaccessible due to lack of technological infrastructure, then the nuclear economy dies and civilization is over, there is no way to start a nuclear fission reaction ever again, and all of the nuclear reactors in the world will just become useless monuments to our own hubris and lack of foresight. safety concerns aside, nuclear energy is very fragile and a nuclear energy-based society being severely destabilized may be extremely difficult or even impossible to ever recover from.

>>98648 >>98655 >>98659 hmm, good amount of infodumpage, but you really didn't post enough links to random websites. Sorry m8 but I think that other lainon won the thread.

what I don't get is how can there be some strong disagreements about co2 since we know ruoghly how much there is of it and how it behaves and co2 is a greenhous gas so it seems logical that more of it means more energy will remain trapped and keep bouncing back to earth and raise the lower atmosphere's temprature then you have people say but its the sun but its the ocean but its the planets crust that releases energy okay right but how does it mean co2 doesnt contribute to trapping this energy regradless of the source >>98668 yeah posts are fuarrrking long but even some dude like me gets how relevant most of them are right i think

>>98668 >hmm, good amount of infodumpage, but you really didn't post enough links to random websites. Sorry m8 but I think that other lainon won the thread. they may have won the thread but they've lost a much more important game. it is quite a lot of infodumpage but i did write it all myself off the top of my head at least, i didn't just lazily copy and paste it, if that's worth anything. >>98690 >what I don't get is how can there be some strong disagreements about co2 the same reason you hear arguments like "well if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" - they don't actually care about what the truth really is, they already have their minds made up and they will perform every conceivable form of mental gymnastics to defend their position and ignore all presented evidence and keep the debate going indefinitely. they think that if they can confuse or agitate or bore their opponent to the point of exhaustion then they "win" the debate and therefore they are right. it's sort of like the filibuster in us politics. >yeah posts are fuarrrking long but even some dude like me gets how relevant most of them are right i think idk how it is for other people but when i see posts that are long and they don't look like they've been copied and pasted i get interested and usually read them, i figure if someone took the time to write all of this out then it ought to at least be interesting to read, even if it's wrong or complete drivel. i often forget that most people tend to have short attention spans nowadays and don't want to read anything anymore.

>>98668 >hmm, good amount of infodumpage You fell for the oldest trick in the book: combining an appeal to authority and obfuscation. The poster drowns the reader in a flood of irrelevant information while trying to come off as educated, all to impress you, and then injects the concealed claim that the former technical irrelevancies are made to have you swallow without any resistance. It's somewhat similar to what most journalists do, always padding their useless articles that would be only one paragraph long with at least two paragraphs of pointless introductions. Compare articles from eighty years ago to the clickbait drivel that was published only ten years ago. Before you throw this back at me and accuse me of doing the same, look at this post >>98659 The first two paragraphs, which are two huge copypastas of general physics, are irrelevant and can be totally removed from the post because they do not even substantiate the real claim at the beginning of the third paragraph, which I copy below. >if everyone in the world switched to nuclear power for all of their energy needs, based on our current rate of energy usage, we would deplete the entire global reserves of uranium-235 in about a decade. That is the claim. To substantiate it, the poster would have needed to provide just one or two citations and perhaps, yes, a link to a reputable source estimating the worldly nuclear fuel usage and the projected consumption rate if everybody switched to nuclear energy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme For 2025, 68,920 tons were used. We could do the calculations by hand but I was lazy so I GPT'd that stuff, working on the basis of the 31 countries that consume nuclear fuel, and strictly looking at U-235 and leaving recycling schemes out. I got three consumption tiers. You can see the three related pictures. But who in his sane mind would give nuclear power technology to people who have no need for it, who can barely build proper houses but instead live in mud huts, people who haven't even invented the wheel (I'm looking at you, black Africans), or those people who spend their time ramming goats, and those who can't even maintain buildings built by colonials (Latino countries for the most part), or people who spend their time soykafting in the street and consuming cow dung while scamming Americans, or even those who cheat on their IQ tests, etc.? That would be totally lunatic. In other words, why even give that first world made technology to the third world? They don't even need to survive and breed recklessly already! So all this "let's give the whole world a fantastic technology that only advanced humans were capable of coming up with and maintain" is peak autism. This won't and should not happen. Then our poster adds another claim that is just extra useless padding. Shit that's directly copied and pasted from the utterly biased anti-nuclear book. > if ever there is some kind of major disruption to civilization, such as a nuclear war or some other big global catastrophe, and all the reactors stop running and all the fissile material is exhausted, destroyed, or inaccessible due to lack of technological infrastructure, then the nuclear economy dies and civilization is over, there is no way to start a nuclear fission reaction ever again Bull-fuarrrking-soykaf. The way to exploit not easily split atoms is indeed reliant on upfront energy. But such levels of energy can be created from anything like coal plants to power dams. We could even run bio-fuel plants burning up refined fuels produced from vast plantations. The war this anon describes would be so apocalyptic that all the infrastructure would be heavily damaged and lost. Well, such wars tend to kill a lot of people too so arable lands would be freed and less people would be using energy. Problem solved. These freed arable lands could be used to produce bio-fuel which could be combined to the output from vast algae farms, even if algae are far less efficient in capturing energy. Large surfaces of culture would still provide substantial amounts of biomass to be turned into fuel. But then we'd have the same anti-CO2 users screaming from the top of their lungs that we're killing the planet and some wild nonsense like that. For the reminder, we would be walking out of a very destructive war which would have ravaged the Earth far more than what our civilian and peaceful industrial activity could ever hope to achieve. Meanwhile, our capacity to build solar farms and wind turbines would be seriously screwed, all with the need for rare earth materials and copious amounts of cement for the latter. So FUCK that noise.

>>98711 >I GPT'd that stuff >continues with racist rambling >suggests being part of "advanced humans" a lot of spooks in your head, huh? but i give you that it needs balls of steel or complete retardation to claim racial dominance while outsourcing thinking to stochastic parrot to try to average potential consumption over all the countries in the world, completely ignoring population and industry distribution based on the current consumption of 31 countries, which none have 100% of nuclear energy, only 3 have above 50%, while US with 18% already consumes 19000 tonnes of uranium.

>>98711 >The way to exploit not easily split atoms is indeed reliant on upfront energy. But such levels of energy can be created from anything like coal plants to power dams. it's not just a matter of having enough energy, time is also a factor. using a particle accelerator to shoot fast neutrons at u-238 or some other non-fissile fuel to turn them into fissile fuels is extremely slow and inefficient, it takes years to get a critical mass of fissile fuel that way. modern society cannot survive losing a significant percentage of its energy for several years, power needs to be turned back on asap after a major disruption and the longer it takes to turn it back on the more things collapse and the harder it is to recover. and at any rate, breeder reactors are still experimental technology and the world is extremely reluctant to invest in them because of the risks involved in having lots of countries and lots of power plants constantly producing and storing fissile isotopes. how do you stop them from using them to build bombs? how do you prevent the isotopes from falling into the wrong hands if the countries are destabilized by a war or a revolution or a natural disaster? the conventional light water reactors that most countries are using now don't have this problem because their waste byproducts are too contaminated to use for anything, but they rely solely on mined and enriched uranium ore to get their fuel and as i said before, that's a very finite non-renewable resource and once that's gone it's gone, we would have to switch to breeder reactors to keep the nuclear fission fuel economy going. not to mention the world has already invested trillions into conventional light water reactors and it's probably too late to go back, you can't repurpose those reactors into breeder reactors because they are fundamentally different in operation, you would just have to tear them down and replace them with breeder reactors which would cost trillions more and take many many decades to accomplish. nuclear power can be useful as a supplementary power source for certain places in the world where things like solar and wind and geothermal might not be feasible due to climate/geography, and it's useful for powering things like ships and submarines and perhaps even spacecraft, but relying on it too heavily for powering our energy grids is a bad idea, its sustainability is too fragile because its ultimately contingent on unnatural resources that can only be produced by either nuclear power itself or by an extremely slow and inefficient process that takes years to produce a usable amount of fuel, and the proliferation risks associated with stockpiling said unnatural resources are simply not worth it. i used to be more in the pro-nuclear camp because i believed that everything would probably be fine so long as nuclear remained solely in the hands of wealthy high-tech stable societies like the united states, but after the era of trump and all that's happened over the past years, i realize that was very wishful thinking on my part. and with all the recent developments in wind and solar and battery technology, the economics of nuclear are not great either, solar and wind are now cheaper and faster to bring online than nuclear. nuclear fission power has kind of been left in the dust, things like solar and wind and battery technology have plenty more room for improvement, cheaper and more efficient batteries and solar cells and frictionless turbines, etc. whereas with nuclear we've been trying very hard to improve it for the past 75 years and we have long since past the point of diminishing returns and haven't made very much progress because a) the improvements we've come up with, such as breeder reactors, generate huge amounts of weapons-grade isotopes and are thus a regulatory and geopolitical nightmare, and b) the laws of physics simply won't allow it, specifically the laws of nuclear physics which are rather strict and don't give you very much leeway. even our newfound knowledge about quantum mechanics, which is already beginning to be applied to improving batteries and photovoltaics and computers, is not very helpful when it comes to improving nuclear technology, because it's all happening in the nucleus where the laws of quantum mechanics are already very much in play. to put it bluntly, climate change is a 21st century problem and a 21st century problem needs 21st century solutions, not a 20th century solution. solutions to climate change need fast, cheap, scalable, resilient, and politically-robust deployment and nuclear deployment has none of those things. the 20th century, specifically the post-ww2 era, was an era of great optimism and plentitude and stability and much trust placed in big centralized institutions, so a technology like nuclear energy made a lot of sense to people living in that era. but that era is over now and it's not coming back so we have to get out of that outmoded mindset if we want to deal with 21st century problems.

>>98690 There are scientists who are hardly given much room who keep saying that the models being used favour certain outputs with a pro-anthropic climate change bias. And lots of people would have us focus on CO2 and ignore water vapour or high altitude cirrus-like clouds that trap IR radiations. >>98714 >wah gpt >wah racist But not once were the information and arguments proven wrong. I suppose you're part of the group of lunatic people who think that the first world became what it is because of sheer unfair and illegitimate luck, and who roll on the ground in sheer pain anytime something smart and efficient is done, incidentally here, using an LLM to fetch some sources and do some calculations, which is fine for what it was meant to do: spout numbers and allow myself to save some precious time. >completely ignoring population and industry distribution based on the current consumption of 31 countries What do you mean by that and tell us how those parameters change anything substantial. >>98729 Power is power regardless of whence it comes. It's agnostic to the limitations of the process of turning uranium 238 into a useful fuel. As it takes years to achieve this, more particle accelerators solely dedicated to this process should be built. You're just padding your answer with tons of irrelevant factors and whataboutisms. The resources needed to build the infrastructure for solar farms and wind farms are just as finite. Starting with the availability of cement of quality. There's one thing that works well and for cheap when it comes to sunlight: crops. But again all the tyrants obsessed about ruining our economies and draining our money out will obviously object to the release of CO2. But despite all their scaremongering we are yet to see how more CO2 is bad for humans and life in general. They disingenuously treat CO2 as some kind of poison while allowing real poison into our food. I don't see much need to improve the nuclear fission process because it's already the most efficient there is on this planet to produce a given quantity of energy for a specific mass of resources, by far. But then again nobody said that we shouldn't mix our sources either. The problem is the hypocrisy and the lies we're served by the "green" side that constantly claims to be holier than thou while pointing fingers at nuclear, coal and oil. >to put it bluntly, climate change is a 21st century problem There we go again, after dropping paragraphs of digressions in a post structured for a TED or WEF talk, the same weaseled claim. What evidence is there that it's a problem at all?

>>98748 >I suppose you're part of the group of lunatic people sounds dope, I'll start using that >roll on the ground in sheer pain anytime something smart and efficient is done I'm fine >using an LLM to fetch some sources and do some calculations, which is fine for what it was meant to do: spout numbers and allow myself to save some precious time. llms generate the most probable output token based on the input tokens, they are language models, they don't know what calculations are or how to do them. it does spout numbers but without any semantic understanding. calculators are for calculations, try using that next time >But not once were the information and arguments proven wrong. okay, I'll bite the bullet. the argument you were trying to refute was that if the whole world used purely nuclear power we would quickly run out of uranium. to refute it you (or the llm) averaged the current consumption of 31 selected countries. based on the data you provided, some of those countries don't even use nuclear energy (e.g. estonia or egypt), most in that list use nuclear for less than 50% of all energy produced and only 3 are above 50%, none have 100% of energy from nuclear power. so averaging the uranium requirements won't take us anywhere close to the needs that would be if we switched to all nuclear power. so the llm calculation is severe underestimation. btw, what the fuarrrk are "tiers of consumption" supposed to mean when averaging, you are really retarded taking that slop at face value. >What do you mean by that and tell us how those parameters change anything substantial. that different countries have different population and different energy needs depending on the amount and type of industrialization. thus taking average of 31 countries and applying it to the rest of the world won't give us anything meaningful. if you don't understand that I'm really worried about your cognitive capabilities. >we are yet to see how more CO2 is bad for humans and life in general lol >You're just padding your answer with tons of irrelevant factors and whataboutisms. >They disingenuously treat CO2 as some kind of poison while allowing real poison into our food. rofl what are you even fighting here? why do you find it so bad to use more distributed, decentralized, sustainable sources of energy? why is it so important to you?

>>98751 >llms generate the most probable output token based on the input tokens, they are language models, they don't know what calculations are or how to do them. it does spout numbers but without any semantic understanding. calculators are for calculations, try using that next time Long boring sentence to say you don't understand anything. Prove the calculation wrong. There was no bias in the prompt nor in the initial sources collated to be used. What it shows is that the other anon's claim about nuclear fuel consumption and time left, which was totally unsubstantiated, appears to be only true at best if you pick the worst conditions possible and decide to let the whole world behave in the same way as the technologically advanced and capable countries do. If you could just lock your histrionics away and argue like any normal person instead of running on emo juice, you may eventually begin to sound logical and explain why we should even let the entire world benefit from the research and advances of a few capable nations. >okay, I'll bite the bullet. the argument you were trying to refute was that if the whole world used purely nuclear power we would quickly run out of uranium. Not quite correct. What I did was to show that by applying three different tiers of nuclear fuel consumption rates, based on the thirty one nations identified as being nuclear capable, and then applied to the entire world, all of which is a rather straightforward calculation, we would find a series of figures of how much time is left, and that is based on two other figures which are the estimated natural reserves left. That was what the other anon didn't come up with. Maybe he was afraid of posting a link because some people in this thread are averse to links, including you who automatically dismisses them all as "random", even if it's actually useful. The real idea I had an issue with was the attack on nuclear power on the implied claim that the whole world would or even should attain a similar level of nuclear fuel use as we do in the first world, which is obviously completely deranged. Again go give the management of a nuclear plant to savages whose highest technological feat is to shove a bone sideways through their nose. >to refute it you (or the llm) averaged the current consumption of 31 selected countries. Averaged three tiers more precisely. Ten countries, ten more and then eleven remaining ones. >based on the data you provided, some of those countries don't even use nuclear energy (e.g. estonia or egypt) What makes you think these two countries were included in the calculations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country >most in that list use nuclear for less than 50% of all energy produced and only 3 are above 50%, none have 100% of energy from nuclear power. so averaging the uranium requirements won't take us anywhere close to the needs that would be if we switched to all nuclear power. As I said, it's based on their current fuel consumption rates, which is public knowledge. Only you and the other anon are working on the assumption that we should go full nuclear. Nobody else made that stupid claim here. >btw, what the fuarrrk are "tiers of consumption" supposed to mean when averaging, you are really retarded taking that slop at face value. It's all in the pictures I posted, but you can't even read them. Go back to school.

>>98751 >>98753 By the way, the table you looked into that lists Estonia and Egypt contains forty one nations, not thirty one. Learn to count. >that different countries have different population and different energy needs depending on the amount and type of industrialization. thus taking average of 31 countries and applying it to the rest of the world won't give us anything meaningful. if you don't understand that I'm really worried about your cognitive capabilities. Don't talk about cognitive abilities when you didn't even understand the rather simple point of those calculations. They precisely assume that for some magical reason all the countries that don't yet use nuclear power would attain a level of development that would bring them into the group of countries that do. It's obviously implied in the premise. In other words, the whole point was to see what if the others do it like us, where does that take us? >>we are yet to see how more CO2 is bad for humans and life in general >lol >rofl lmao even Why can't you address claims properly like an adult? >what are you even fighting here? why do you find it so bad to use more distributed, decentralized, sustainable sources of energy? So those wind turbines that are lumped together and totally depend on extremely complex infrastructures are distributed now? Show me how those wind mills and panels are sustainable when they're not even recycled. They end in landfills or some of their composite materials are even incinerated. We talked about that issue in the former threads already, tourist. The other anon claimed the "sustainable" solutions were safe, but then whined about the risks regarding enriched nuclear fuels and geopolitical tensions, as if the highly sought materials necessary for the panels or turbines weren't already creating huge issues there considering how highly dependent they are on China's reserves and production capacity. He said they were cheap without specifying, conveniently, that the low costs are only possible because the whole chain of recycling is simply completely excluded from the total costs. Would they be included, nobody could afford solar panels. >why is it so important to you? Because it runs on lies and skewed data. As simple as that. Are you excited by IEA’s Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions by 2050 by the way?

>>98753 >Long boring sentence to say you don't understand anything. building your arguments using llms is boring and only shows you don't understand anything. >Prove the calculation wrong. >As I said, it's based on their current fuel consumption rates, which is public knowledge. Only you and the other anon are working on the assumption that we should go full nuclear. they assumed the whole world would go nuclear, you assumed the whole world would match the current state in your calculation. I'm pointing out the whole time that it doesn't refute what the original claim was. >The real idea I had an issue with was the attack on nuclear power on the implied claim that the whole world would or even should attain a similar level of nuclear fuel use as we do in the first world, which is obviously completely deranged. Again go give the management of a nuclear plant to savages whose highest technological feat is to shove a bone sideways through their nose. if this is the main point then why did you even try to disprove the original claim? it has no substance in this context if you believe only n-number of countries should have this capability anyway. in reality none of the other claims really matter because in the end it's all about your racial-realism or whatever soykaf you believe in >What makes you think these two countries were included in the calculations? >By the way, the table you looked into that lists Estonia and Egypt contains forty one nations, not thirty one. Learn to count. touché >Why can't you address claims properly like an adult? you're bitching about whataboutism just to engage in whataboutism few sentences further. there really isn't much else to say to that >Because it runs on lies and skewed data. As simple as that. o, you brave man, defending the objective truth and the real data, you can't be deceived, how foolish of me to even try to trick you. >Are you excited by IEA’s Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions by 2050 by the way? don't give a soykaf

talking more about the sustainability of nuclear fission power, for the sake of argument let's take uranium-235 and primary ignition fuels and proliferation concerns out of the equation entirely and just talk about the sustainability of plain old uranium-238 and thorium-232, the common non-fissile isotopes that constitute almost all of the natural uranium and thorium in the world. these isotopes are often described as being "highly abundant" by people who work in the nuclear industry, but "abundant" is a relative term - compared to the shorter half-life fissile isotopes like uranium-235 they are indeed highly abundant, but in terms of all the natural elements they are not very abundant at all, they can only be produced by very energetic cosmic phenomena like supernova explosions so they are rare throughout the universe, and in the earth's crust they are particularly rare because when planets are first formed they are molten hot and almost all of the heavier elements sink down into the core and mantle under the effect of gravity. on top of that, most of the uranium and thorium in the earth's crust is highly diffused in extremely minute trace amounts in rocks and soils, making it effectively unrecoverable because it's simply not economical or practical to dig up and process 2 million kilograms of dirt and rock just to get a single kilogram of uranium or thorium. the only recoverable uranium/thorium is in mineral deposits, veins of ore in the upper crust that are close enough to the surface to be locatable and mineable. if you add up all the total mass of all the recoverable uranium and thorium in the world there's about 6 million tons of each, so a total of 12 million tons of fission fuel. 1 ton of uranium or thorium contains about 20 terawatt hours of potential thermal energy, so all the mineable fission fuel in the world contains 240 million terawatt hours of thermal energy. the efficiency of any nuclear fission reactor at turning that thermal energy into electricity is limited by the laws of thermodynamics and material constraints because for a reactor to run more efficiently it must run at higher temperatures and all of the components must be able to withstand those temperatures. current reactors run at about 33% efficiency and the practical upper limit for efficiency based on the limits of human material engineering is estimated to be about 45%. so that's brings it down to 108 million terawatt hours. in 2025 the total energy consumption of the entire world was about 30,000 terawatt hours. based on this rate of consumption, if we used nuclear energy for all our electricity needs we would exhaust all of the mineable uranium and thorium in the world in 3,600 years. but of course, it is very unlikely that the rate of consumption is going to stay the same, it will likely continue to increase every year as it has in the past. from 1950 to today, the rate of global electricity consumption has increased on an average of about 5% a year, so assuming this exponential growth continues in the future that means that, best case scenario with the best breeder reactors we can possibly build, we would run out of uranium and thorium in about 107 years.

>>98761 >but in terms of all the natural elements they are not very abundant at all that's a really disingenuous way of putting it, because everything except hydrogen is 'not very abundant' by this standard, and everything heavier than iron is 'rare' due to being produced only in highly energetic cosmic phenomena. >and in the earth's crust they are particularly rare because when planets are first formed they are molten hot and almost all of the heavier elements sink down into the core and mantle under the effect of gravity. It's true that most of the heavy elements we get probably come from asteroid impacts. However, they are quite abundant in asteroids, and asteroid capture is not an impossibility. >from 1950 to today, the rate of global electricity consumption has increased on an average of about 5% a year, so assuming this exponential growth continues in the future that means that, best case scenario with the best breeder reactors we can possibly build, we would run out of uranium and thorium in about 107 years. If we apply this reasoning, we will run out of drinkable water, arable land, living space, and pretty much all non-renewable resources long before then. The population of the globe will be around 44 billion. Perhaps consistent exponential growth is a bad assumption to make? Perhaps we should be thinking of ways we can get off the oil addiction now, rather than try to game it out hundreds of years in the future?

>>98763 >that's a really disingenuous way of putting it, because everything except hydrogen is 'not very abundant' by this standard, and everything heavier than iron is 'rare' due to being produced only in highly energetic cosmic phenomena. it's not disingenuous, i said so myself that "abundant" is a relative term. there are basically two major dropoffs in abundance on the periodic table, the first and biggest dropoff is after helium because 98% of all matter in the universe is hydrogen and helium, all of the hydrogen and almost all of the helium having been produced by the big bang. the second dropoff is after iron because iron has the most stable nucleus of all elements and it costs more energy to fuse iron than is released from fusion, so stellar fusion stops at iron. elements after iron only make up about 0.01% of matter in the universe. >Perhaps consistent exponential growth is a bad assumption to make? looking back all the way to the beginning of the industrial revolution at how the rate of energy consumption sharply increased after certain major technological breakthroughs, i think it's a conservative assumption to make because it assumes that there won't be some other major technological breakthrough in the future that makes the rate of energy consumption increase even more. thinking that technological progress is going to level off any day now is a naive assumption to make, it calls to mind charles h. duell's infamous quote "everything that can be invented has been invented" from 1899.

>>98767 My guy, you're in the solarpunk thread arguing that all major technological breakthroughs necessarily involve massive spikes in energy consumption.

>>98756 >they assumed the whole world would go nuclear, you assumed the whole world would match the current state in your calculation. I'm pointing out the whole time that it doesn't refute what the original claim was. It's merely one way to understand his wording. >if everyone in the world switched to nuclear power for all of their energy needs, based on our current rate of energy usage I was being very generous aligning world needs with the top tier consumption rate I provided, for reasons already given. There are billions of people on this planet who have very small needs and barely use that much energy at all. There is no reason to suddenly imagine that they would transform into first world citizens with similar needs. We align the calculation on their current needs. So you can see that even if we were accepting the bizarre idea that all these backwater people would suddenly use as much electricity as the people from the lowest averaged tier of nuclear fuel users (lowest third tier), then depending on the reserve estimate, said reserves would still last between 97 and 130 years, which gives us plenty of time to find new systems of power production. Much more than a decade. Here's one you will like though: another kind of calculation would require considering just how much electricity each individual on average needs today, and then say that all of this is suddenly strictly provided by nuclear plants, which will run on uranium 235. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today >Nuclear energy now provides about 9% of the world's electricity from about 440 power reactors. Let's say 10%. So instead of using 68,920 tonnes a year, we'd be using ten times that. 680,920 tonnes. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium >Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon. >Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived, and are relative to both market prices and cost of extraction. >The world's known uranium resources increased by at least one-quarter in the last decade due to increased mineral exploration. >Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. >World total: 5,925,700 tonnes World reserves would last 8.7 years if no new deposits were found. This is the only time one can reach a figure that sits in the single decade ballpark, and that's it. That website tells us that the world’s power reactors, with combined capacity of about 400 GWe, require some 67,000 tonnes of uranium from mines or elsewhere each year. But I stuck with wikipedia's slightly higher value. Here too we need to have a reminder: there is a reason why only ten percent of the world's electricity is made from nuclear fuels. Electricity is now given as a miraculous boon to people who would have never been able to tame it in the first place, even less be able to comprehend the complex science behind it, which pales in light of what nuclear physics represent and require. The other question being why would even the top thirty most advanced countries in the world move towards a nuclear fuel consumption per kilowatt that would completely dwarf what even the top five producers have never managed to reach? >if this is the main point then why did you even try to disprove the original claim? it has no substance in this context if you believe only n-number of countries should have this capability anyway. Because the anon went full alarmist while not providing his sources but at the same was relying on faulty premises. So I addressed both, the figures and the premises. Sure, I could have just dismissed the dramatic figures and focused on the premises alone. >you're bitching about whataboutism just to engage in whataboutism few sentences further. there really isn't much else to say to that Like what? I doubt that since I want to stay on point. >o, you brave man, defending the objective truth and the real data, you can't be deceived, how foolish of me to even try to trick you. I guess some people enjoy being deceived. >don't give a soykaf They tend to argue from the same position as yours, with the same points: CO2 bad, nuclear bad. Glad to know you dgaf. We may finally agree.

>>98761 >on top of that, most of the uranium and thorium in the earth's crust is highly diffused in extremely minute trace amounts in rocks and soils, making it effectively unrecoverable because it's simply not economical or practical to dig up and process 2 million kilograms of dirt and rock just to get a single kilogram of uranium or thorium. You surely meant 2 billion grams of dirt and rock? Or perhaps 2 trillion milligrams of dirt and rock? Do you have any idea how much dirt is upheaved per month, worldwide, just to scrap kilograms of gemstones, gold and silver? Digging up two thousand tonnes of dirt to get one kilogram of uranium, that's literally nothing. If you want to look into cool gargantuan projects related to uranium extraction, look no further than elution of deposits collected from the filtering of seawater. ~3.3 mg U can be collected per cubic metre of that abundant liquid on Earth, and to get one tonne of uranium (the plain one) you'd need to shove about ~303 million cubic metres of seawater through collectors. Now that sounds big so to put that into perspective, let's just point at the fact that several existing large seawater desalination plants individually treat on the order of 0.5–1 million cubic meters per day already. This is not taking off much for now because of the higher costs associated to the entire process, as it's just easier to mine the stuff from the ground.

>>98767 >looking back all the way to the beginning of the industrial revolution at how the rate of energy consumption sharply increased after certain major technological breakthroughs, i think it's a conservative assumption to make because it assumes that there won't be some other major technological breakthrough in the future that makes the rate of energy consumption increase even more. *cough* fagcoin mining & AI slopping *cough* The other real issue is pushing underdeveloped nations into behaviors that are unnatural to them. Their subpar "development" is not an accident.

>>94577 we think you can't have genuine solarpunk without energy liberation, argricultural acceleration, and colonization, the conflict of the universal century in gundam essentially defines itself via the dialectical proposal that solarpunk represents.

>>98771 the mirny diamond mine according to wikipedia is 525 meters deep and 1200 meters in diameter. to get a rough idea of the volume we can do (4/3 * pi * 600^2 * 525) / 2 which gives us 395,840,500 cubic meters. a typical density for dry mineral soil is 1,500 kg per cubic meter, so that's 593,760,750,000 kilograms. according to the international atomic energy agency the average concentration of uranium in soil is about 2 parts per million, so all of the material excavated from the mirny diamond mine contains about 1,186,522 kilograms of uranium. excavation started on the mirny diamond mine 69 years ago, so that's 17,196 kilograms, or about 17 metric tons a year. the global demand for uranium is 67,000 metric tons a year. if someone actually went through the effort of recovering the trace uranium from the mirny diamond mine, the second largest manmade hole in the world, it would only cover 0.025% of the global demand for uranium. and i'm not even going to try to calculate how much money and time and energy it would cost to try to recover that uranium from all of that dirt, but suffice it to say that such a proposition would be economically absurd.

>>98775 People don't generally mine for uranium by digging random holes in the ground, they find places where the rock has relatively high uranium concentration, like 500 times higher than the average. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/uranium-mining-overview >Most of the uranium ore deposits at present supporting these mines have average grades in excess of 0.10% of uranium – that is, greater than 1000 parts per million. In the first phase of uranium mining to the 1960s, this would have been seen as a respectable grade, but today some Canadian mines have huge amounts of ore up to 20% U average grade. Other mines however can operate successfully with very low grade ores, down to about 0.02% U This is a stupid debate but at least I'm learning something

>>98768 >My guy, you're in the solarpunk thread arguing that all major technological breakthroughs necessarily involve massive spikes in energy consumption. what i said was that certain technological breakthroughs in the past have lead to massive spikes in electricity consumption and it wasn't meant to be an argument so much as just simply stating a fact. if modern civilization doesn't collapse in the near future then it's probably a safe assumption that there will continue to be major advancements in technology that open up new industries which leads to rapid industrial growth which leads to massive spikes in electricity consumption. we're already seeing this right now with the ai boom as someone mentioned earlier and we will probably see it again in the future. i don't know what solarpunk has to do with it, even if all of society switched to sustainable clean energy sources, technological research will continue and that research will eventually lead to discoveries that open up new opportunies for industrial growth.

the major obstacle with decentralizing technology is the fact that, as it stands now, the more sophisticated our technology becomes the more complex the manufacturing process is, and therefore the more centralized the manufacturing becomes and the more dependent people are on huge centralized high-tech industries to make use of the technology, so in effect solarpunk's core principles are rather contradictory. the only way i can see us getting around this is through biotech. with biotech, the research and development is the expensive and complex part, but the actual "manufacturing" i.e. cultivation is quite simple. imagine if instead of having to build synthetic photovoltaic cells out of highly refined silicon crystals in some high-tech factory, we had some kind of genetically-engineered photovoltaic organism that produces a surplus of electrical energy. a person wouldn't need to buy an expensive pre-fabricated solar cell from a manufacturer, they would only need to buy a small sample of biological culture. they would construct an appropriate habitat for the culture, a large shallow container of water placed outdoors in the sunlight with whatever nutrients the organism needs, and they just inoculate it with their sample and maintain whatever conditions it needs to grow and thrive and they have a solar cell that generates electricity. they can take samples from the pool to build more pools or share them with their friends or preserve for later use, etc. basically it would just be farming, the same thing that pre-industrial humans were doing since the beginning of recorded history. there is very little incentive by our capitalist industrial society to research things like this because there's no profit angle in it, you don't make as much money selling biological cultures that people only need to buy every once in a while and then can just clone and redistribute over and over again, you don't make money by decentralizing technology and giving regular people control over things, you make money by centralizing technology and making and selling disposable things that are too complex for regular people to understand or repair or remanufacture themselves, things that people can only helplessly consume; you make money by making people powerless and giving them no choices. there's a reason why pre-industrial subsistence farming was abolished and it's not because industrial factory farming is more accessible and less wasteful and produces better quality food, because it's obviously not any of those things. it's because ordinary people being self-sufficient and owning and living off of the land is the capitalist's worst nightmare and the capitalists did absolutely everything in their power to put a stop to that. the factory farming frenzy of the industrial revolution in the united states that caused the dust bowl - that wasn't a technological inevitability. people didn't get so excited about their fancy new machines that they just suddenly forget all about the concept of topsoil depletion, something that humans have been well-aware of since the beginning of agriculture. the capitalists deliberately depleted the topsoil so that they could destroy the livelihoods of all those stubborn subsistence farmers and get them off of that land so that they could have it all for themselves. if biotech can ever reach the point where it can solve modern problems reasonably well compared to the conventional technology of products manufactured from synthetic materials, then it might be possible for there to be some kind of post-industrial renaissance where the industrial capitalist system no longer has any leverage over common people and they have alternatives they can use that are cheaper and more sustainable and give them more control over their own lives and capitalism becomes effectively obsolete and the industrial sector shrinks down to just a few public-funded biotech research firms that develop newer and better engineered organisms.

>>98779 addendum: forgive me for how ignorant this will sound, but it honestly never really occurred to me until now what a loaded bullshit term "subsistence farmer" really is. it's like, people who live off of the land by their own labor are not independent farmers, or just farmers; they are subsistence farmers. it conjures up this image of filthy starving people digging in the dirt with their bare hands looking for a carrot to eat to stay alive for one more day. they're not really living, they're just subsisting, just barely scraping by. it's sort of in the same category as terms like "third world" or "undeveloped", the idea being to establish a hierarchy where certain ways of living are inherently low and degrading and outmoded, where people who haven't yet been assimilated into the capitalist system are helpless and stupid and their existence is squandering valuable resources that could be put to better use by "higher" civilizations. it's essentially a modern version of european colonialist terms like "savage" or "nigger".

>>98781 the term "subsistence farmer" refers to small groups of people such as families or villages who primarily grow crops to meet their personal food needs and only sell a small amount of excess, rather than (for instance) a farmer who primarily grows cash crops to sell on the international market. It does have a bad connotation in some contexts but it also has a legitimate meaning.

>>98782 The term coom in coons poon is a solar powered blood libel

>>98782 the capitalist factory farmer is also a subsistence farmer, he just subsists on perpetual growth of capital instead of food, which is a much more precarious position to be in. the "subsistence farmer" doesn't need to keep expanding his farm with more and more acres every year, his farm can stay the same size and feed him and his family for generations, if he has a bad year he and his family tighten their belts and hold on and wait for things to get better. but the factory farmer's farm cannot stay the same size and it cannot endure a bad year, it has to keep expanding and showing higher profit margins every year or else the shareholders will sell their shares and the bank will call the loan and the factory farmer will be ruined. when you really think about it, it's the capitalist factory farmer who is just barely scraping by, living perpetually on the edge of destruction, because no amount of surplus can ever be enough; he has to constantly prove to his investors and lenders that his farm is profiting and expanding at least as much as the other competing factory farms are or else he is finished, and in a world of finite space this outcome is a mathematical inevitability.

>>98785 >the capitalist factory farmer is also a subsistence farmer no, not at all. Again, subsistence farming specifically refers to growing food primarily to meet your own direct needs. It's about how much the farmer interacts with the market and the way they interact with the market, not how precarious they are.

>>98787 try to suspend your superficial inflexible LLM-type thinking for just 5 seconds and understand the actual point i am making here, the meaning behind the words.

>>98788 I understand the meaning behind the words, you made yourself very clear. I think I've also made myself very clear. Just because "subsistence" sounds derogatory sometimes does not mean the term "subsistence farmer" does not have a specific meaning, it is a very useful way to distinguish ways of farming that are fundamentally different.

>>98775 >Mirny mine It's a small one and it's a mine. 15 million tonnes of rock are removed each year at the super pit at Kalgoorlie, Australia. Worldwide, in 2018, the volume of removed rock amounted to 9.1 billion tonnes for gold digging only. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9118561/ 3,644 tonnes of gold have been dug out in 2023. The median (I mean typical) rock-(to)-metal-ratio (or also RMR) for gold is in the range of 10^5 to 10^6 tonnes of rock per tonne of metal, from a Nassar et al., RMR study about preshious metals. So you're looking at 364 to 3,644 million tonnes of rock removed just to pick gold in 2023. Admittedly the production of gold using these methods has increased due to high demand, but that's not important. What matters is if we can do it or not, to which the answer is decidedly yes. >the average concentration of uranium in soil is about 2 parts per million It looks like the concept of a deposit is alien to you. Or more precisely, since you're capable of talking about a mine two sentences earlier, you should actually understand that concept but you come out as totally inconsistent, which implies you don't even understand what you're dumping here a method, by spamming irrelevant scientific material as padding to obfuscate the inanity of your claims.

>>98785 There's a mid-position: the productive farmer who guarantees the subsistence of many people. Unfortunately the current system tends to push such farmers into a capitalist state of mind where the objective is to increase capital at any cost. A medium scale productive farmer knows when he has reached his limit and avoids finding himself stuck in debt. Many farmers now are nothing more than employees of large groups too, independence is gone.

>>98797 oh look the chatbot is starting to crack

>>98798 Indeed, a substantial part of the reason why people view subsistence farming in a bad light is because they are not exploited as much by the capitalist class. Sometimes they will literally use the term underexploited.

Guys, guys guys hear me out! SOLAR! FRIGGN! HIGHWAYS!

>>98769 >It's merely one way to understand his wording. >>if everyone in the world switched to nuclear power for all of their energy needs, based on our current rate of energy usage you're taking the piss, aren't you >world-nuclear.org literal advocacy organization for nuclear power with their stated goals to "represent the nuclear industry" and to "influence decision-makers, organizations and media to position nuclear energy as an essential contributor to sustainable development". their board is filled with nuclear energy and uranium mining ceos. is it even necessary to point out that they have clear incentive to paint nuclear energy in the most positive light? >transform into first world citizens with similar needs >all these backwater people >people who would have never been able to tame it in the first place, even less be able to comprehend the complex science behind it these core dogmatic views of yours seem to fuel your feelings about energy and i find it increasingly boring. in the greater context of this thread you're debate-broing a position which confirms your ideological feelings about "inferior" people, and you are unable to provide anything meaningful besides that

>>98801 >oh look the chatbot is starting to crack >>98806 >you're taking the piss, aren't you Well, without much surprise, the local retard acted retardedly. Thank you for your concessions. >literal advocacy organization for nuclear power with their stated goals to "represent the nuclear industry" and to "influence decision-makers, organizations and media to position nuclear energy as an essential contributor to sustainable development". >their board is filled with nuclear energy and uranium mining ceos. is it even necessary to point out that they have clear incentive to paint nuclear energy in the most positive light? They're raw statistics about the current use of nuclear energy. Are their numbers wrong? Do they have any reason to specifically lie about them? >these core dogmatic views of yours seem to fuel your feelings about energy and i find it increasingly boring. Boring or not they are nevertheless true. >in the greater context of this thread you're debate-broing a position which confirms your ideological feelings about "inferior" people, and you are unable to provide anything meaningful besides that Sure Pablo. Why the quotation marks around inferior btw? Are you telling me that we stole nuclear technology to third world nations now?

>>98804 >People have a bad opinion of subsistance farming because they wouldn't be slaves if they had it. That's just wrong. They think subsistence farming is seen as bad because it's what the people who have no other choices to feed themselves do. That's real poverty.

>>98812 >They think subsistence farming is seen as bad because it's what the people who have no other choices to feed themselves do. That's real poverty. A free man living on a piece of land where his food literally grows on trees is poverty. Now that's capitalist logic.

>>98816 Tbf a lot of subsistence farmers are/were renters or bound to a specific piece of land. On this case they are objectively poor.

>>98818 Again, this is an inhuman capitalist conception of what poverty is. Humans are supposed to be bound to the land that they live on, dependent on their local environment for the things they need to live, that is the natural order of all life. Capitalist thinking completely rejects this natural order and imagines the human as some kind of godlike being who should not be bound to the earth, who should be outside of everything and not governed by any higher power, who should make use of the world and its resources in a purely abstract financial relationship and not actually have any tangible personal connection to it. When capitalists look at people who are bound to the land, like a family of homesteaders or a tribe of indigenous natives, they see people who are impoverished, helpless and uncivilized, and they convince themselves that they would be doing them a favor by pushing them off of that land and robbing them of their livelihood and genociding or enslaving them. Capitalist thinking is delusional thinking, it is insanity, a disease of the mind that results from a person having so much wealth and power that they have forgotten what it means to be human and lost their grip on reality. Capitalism is a misanthropic, nihilistic, quasireligious suicide cult that ignores the laws of nature, ignores logic and reason, ignores the absurdity and unsustainability of its own propositions. Unless we can become aware of this sickness and purge it from our minds and resist all efforts by capitalist zealots to indoctrinate us with their sickness, we will all be destroyed along with them.

>>98822 >Humans are supposed to be bound to the land that they live on By "bound to a specific piece of land" I obviously meant that they were legally not allowed to move. How could you possibly think that is "natural", when it is enforced by an exploitative land-owner?

when i think "people bound to the land" i think of people directly living off of the land they cultivate or forage, i.e. people being bound only by nature itself and not bound by human authority, which to my way of thinking is the closest thing to freedom there is.i don't think of a slave as being "bound to the land" - they are bound to human masters and not the land, they aren't allowed to take anything from the land to feed themselves, they are only permitted to take what is given to them by their masters, and they don't even need to physically live on the land they could live elsewhere and be transported onto the land when needed and transported off the land when no longer needed. likewise the owners of the land are bound by human authority in the form of markets and investors and lenders and are not bound to the land, they don't live off the land itself, they don't even have to touch the land or ever be physically present on the land, their slaves do all of the work of extracting and refining and shipping resources from the land and the owners merely collect the profits. nobody actually has any direct relationship to the land under this system, for the slave the land is just someone else's private property they must tend to but never actually touch, and for the owner the land is just some monetary figures in a ledger. neither of these people are truly free and both ways of living are unnatural dehumanizing abstractions from reality.

>>98831 >i don't think of a slave as being "bound to the land" - they are bound to human masters and not the land, they aren't allowed to take anything from the land to feed themselves, they are only permitted to take what is given to them by their masters A serf was legally bound to a specific plot of land that they were allowed to farm, and they were required to either give the lord some amount of the proceeds or donate some amount of labor time to the lord's land. Nonetheless, they were mostly subsistence farmers who 'lived off the land'. The idea of being bound only by nature itself is a fantasy. It only exists in minecraft. Even the most "in touch with nature" people you could point to had complex legal or quasi-legal systems.

>>98832 >A serf was legally bound to a specific plot of land that they were allowed to farm, and they were required to either give the lord some amount of the proceeds or donate some amount of labor time to the lord's land. It's just slavery by another name, the serf was a piece of property and nothing more, like a horse or an ox. The supposed contract was just a formality and the lord could reneg or alter the terms of the "contract" at any time, it's not like the serf could go request an audience with the king and lodge a formal complaint when their lord mistreated them or failed to hold up their end of the supposed bargain, it's not like the serf had some other place they could go and live freely when all of the land is owned by lords who treat their serfs the same way and the king's soldiers guard the land and kill anyone who trespasses on it. >The idea of being bound only by nature itself is a fantasy. It only exists in minecraft. Even the most "in touch with nature" people you could point to had complex legal or quasi-legal systems. That is literally how human beings had lived for hundreds of thousands of years before the development of spoken language, never mind anything that could be even remotely construed as a legal or quasi-legal system. Millions of years in fact, if you include all hominids. You might argue that they lived under social pressures and hierarchy within their group, but those constraints were direct and personal and human, they were face-to-face confrontations where both parties could see their challenger and argue or reason or fight with them directly. That is not at all the same thing as a human being living under an abstract system of social control run by powerful human authority figures whom they cannot directly engage with in any capacity, where human authority usurps the position of nature and act as its own unconfrontable, indifferent, and immutable force. Revisionism is a fundamental component of capitalist/imperialist thought. Humans have never lived in the world without some abstract higher human authority controlling them and the Empire, like God, has always existed and has no beginning and no end. Every kind of human development all the way back to the taming of fire happened because of the Empire, everything that exists exists because the Empire wills it so. There is no such thing as nature and the world without the Empire is just formless uninhabitable chaos where nothing is possible and no life or intelligence could ever emerge.

>>98833 >it's just slavery by another name It's really not. Serfs had many basic rights that no slave ever had. >it's not like the serf could go request an audience with the king and lodge a formal complaint when their lord mistreated them or failed to hold up their end of the supposed bargain It literally was like that. You fail to make any distinction between how serfs actually lived and how plantation slaves actually lived, and you seem to think that "real freedom" means to be an animal. Plus you consistently misunderstand what other people say in such a basic way that I doubt you actually comprehend anything written in this thread. Begone, fool.

>>98806 >these core dogmatic views of yours seem to fuel your feelings about energy and i find it increasingly boring NTA but I wonder if this all just entertainment for you. Which wouldn't be a problem if stupid old people in power weren't listening to you idiots. >>98809 LOL you fell for the good ol' "where's your sources?" "nah, I don't like those sources". Do you feel silly now, having thought this was going to be a good faith argument? But let me do what the other idiot couldn't, actually sour the idea of nuclear plants and also with only two words: affirmative action At least thirdies can't cause a melt down by digging with their bare hands for raw lithium and other ore that's critical for the chinese to produce those solar panels. >>98816 I wonder, have you ever worked a farm that produces enough food to sustain just one person and make them fully independent from supermarkets or any other external infrastructure? Or are you just selling your personal romanticized notions as "truths"? >>98837 >Serfs had many basic rights that no slave ever had. Yes, retvrn to serfdom! I wonder where we would all be if posh middle to upper class pricks with their little herb gardens on their balcony wouldn't voice their sheltered opinions. It's fair to be concerned about the environment and climate. We need to invest in more technology which is more efficient with our finite resources and not only reduces waste and pollution but also reverts existing damage. Instead we aren't even putting pressure on the countries most responsible for it and western streets start to look like the ones in Bangladesh. We as a civilization are chasing these sexy sounding solutions like infinite free energy which totally doesn't rely on rare earths and heavy pollution processes, hazardous slave labor and toxic waste. While even combustion engines with modern standards or actual recycling would yield better results. Because the leading voices on that matter are people who're really only interested about feeling righteous and good about themselves, nothing more. They talk about capitalism but fall yet for other private financial interests. This thread is a prime example for this. Dimwit narcissistic treehuggers are going to be out great filter if we keep taking their views seriously rather than the danger that they pose.

>>98839 >Do you feel silly now, having thought this was going to be a good faith argument? By default, and especially here on lainchan, we do expect good faith. It contributes to the quality of the place. >At least thirdies can't cause a melt down by digging with their bare hands for raw lithium and other ore that's critical for the chinese to produce those solar panels. Tell me you didn't fall for the primitivist fallacy.

>>98841 >The rules say you must ignore the wolf beneath the sheep's wool See, I prefer to follow those guidelines but for their intended effect to work there also must be reciprocity. Holding others to a standard is bad faith if you yourself aren't. >Proceeds with some non sequitur gotcha How do you even see a pro-primitivist stance in an argument for increased industry? The only way to innovate ourselves out of the current mess is by cheap and reliable energy, sane market mechanics and a high IQ, educated and preferably high trust population. If just one of those prerequisites is missing, the possibilities are greatly hampered. Even western nations are now struggling with this. And your excuses as to why other nations are less developed do not matter if little to nothing of note comes from there.

>>98846 >See, I prefer to follow those guidelines but for their intended effect to work there also must be reciprocity. Holding others to a standard is bad faith if you yourself aren't. That's called hypocrisy, but it can only work that long before it just becomes obvious that one side is arguing in good faith and the other is just crapping up the board. >How do you even see a pro-primitivist stance in an argument for increased industry? Then I didn't understand the point you were making about the thirdies. Maybe the sarcasm was too high for me. >The only way to innovate ourselves out of the current mess is by cheap and reliable energy, sane market mechanics and a high IQ, educated and preferably high trust population. If just one of those prerequisites is missing, the possibilities are greatly hampered. Even western nations are now struggling with this. And your excuses as to why other nations are less developed do not matter if little to nothing of note comes from there. The Western nations in question are changing and lowering themselves to the level of the less developed nations. This is the institutional suicidal madness that needs to be addressed first I think.

to be able to have honest discussions about this kind of stuff we really have to rethink a lot of the language we use because our language happens to be absolutely riddled with teleology, i.e. the idea that human technological and social and even biological evolution are a linear progression from "primitive" to "sophisticated" or "undeveloped" to "developed" or "basic" to "advanced" etc. that is all bullshit and it's not how evolution works at all. evolution is not a deterministic progression towards some future goal, evolution is just a historical ledger of past events and the ledger is never closed. the taming of fire is technology in the same way that a nuclear reactor is technology, one is not more or less "advanced" than the other, they are just different expressions of the same human innovative compulsion and one of them occurred much later in history than the other and is more complex in terms of its mechanics and implementation than the other, but as to which one is more significant or has further-reaching consequences, no one can really say. one single nuclear reactor is obviously more immediately significant and has further-reaching consequences than one single campfire, but the ramifications of civilization as a whole controlling fire or splitting atoms are equally vast beyond all comprehension and one cannot be meaningfully weighed against the other. i say all of this because people often accuse me of being a "primitivist" for advocating a more decentralized social structure and less abstract way of living for human beings, probably due to the cultural influence of certain notable figures like ted kaczynski, a person who also suffered from teleological thinking, only his teleology ran in the opposite direction with human technology being a regression from better to worse. i am not a "primitivist" and i do not even believe in the word "primitive" as a concept and i don't believe that technology is a progression or a regression of any kind, it's just a bunch of ideas people have come up with throughout history and any of them could potentially be applied in ways that are either beneficial or harmful to humanity at the individual or collective level. it doesn't have to come down to a choice between old versus new, it can be combination of the old and the new.

>>98839 >Instead we aren't even putting pressure on the countries most responsible for it What would "putting pressure on them" look like? Should activists from Germany go to Bangladesh, a country where they have no freedom of speech, do not even know the language and are not part of the voting public, and tell them to stop using coal? This insistence that we cannot do anything locally, and it must always start with foreign nations, is basically making perfect the enemy of good. Everyone knows China needs to stop making coal plants, but we (people, not nations) can't really do anything about it at the moment. We can barely convince our own governments to do anything at all. Furthermore, there is literally zero reason why we cannot switch to better energy sources while also vying internationally for other nations to do the same. The only obstacle is political will, because our nations and their nations are controlled by the same political class, one who is not very interested in anything except their own profit. >While even combustion engines with modern standards or actual recycling would yield better results. I'm curious to hear what you mean by "better results". By what standard, and do you have data to back it up? Also, the main obstacle to recycling is that so many goods are made without any thought given to their life-cycle. All the cellophane wrappers we use are a good example. The energy required to recycle them is way more than the gains you get by doing so, and it would be better to switch to some other way of packaging goods.

>>98852 well maybe the government of germany ought to compel the bangladesh government to comply with german environemental regulations. It is rather strange and myopic to think that global change not only begins at home, but ends there never having left.

>>98854 Yes, I fully agree. But note this part of the post you're replying to: >Furthermore, there is literally zero reason why we cannot switch to better energy sources while also vying internationally for other nations to do the same. The only obstacle is political will

>>98852 >Should activists from Germany go to Bangladesh [...] and tell them to stop using coal? Yes, that's actually a brilliant idea! At the very least I'd have some peace from those idiots. And also it would be quite entertaining to watch, more so than them doing this here. But a better idea would be to stop being reliant on chinese batteries and solar panels, renew nuclear plants to modern standards, and have german engineers work on making engines more efficient and manufactured under Germany's strict environmental standards. Instead those "green" policies made Porsche go out of business, and other manufacturers move elsewhere. This whole out of sight out of mind approach while making moral arguments is why I'm so tired listening to this stupidity of yours. >But what can we possibly do about India's rivers being full of trash and Chinese rivers catching fires?! Don't buy from them. Don't move your manufacturing there. Don't become economically dependent on them, even if it's "cheaper" in the short term. >but we (people, not nations) can't really do anything about it at the moment More excuses. I believe they're called "feiglinge" in Germany. I can at least respect an eco-alarmist if they're ready to nuke China, because at least they are serious about their convictions. Instead the greens in Europe prefer to strangle all domestic economic activity and claim that "we will deal with China later". The problem is that this "later" will never come as european nations become increasingly irrelevant due to the same policies. It's like a cruel joke. >one who is not very interested in anything except their own profit. Do you seriously believe there's no profit motif in solar and wind generators or the massive amount of rare earth batteries that this necessitates? You keep browbeating people with this emotional rhetoric, but not only is the economic aspect important to the discussion as well but neither is your alternative any better at this. Tell me again why anyone should listen to you. >there is literally zero reason why we cannot switch to better energy sources Are you talking about nuclear and dams? Or IC-engines that run at less than 4l per 100km? Maybe even capacitor based hybrids with regenerative breaking and motors optimized to run closer to their ideal RPM? Maybe further investment in hydrogen or fusion? Or are you talking about deforesting more ancient wilderness to open space for more wind and solar farms, so that you can strap a 100kg lithium battery to some made in china cars that doesn't get lighter as you drive, loses 80% of its max capacity within just a year or so, and soon will go on a landfill unrecycled? Please define "better" here. >>98851 You just went from "evolution is like pokemons" to full on subjectivism. Fire you can make with some skill and sticks on a windy night, for nuclear energy you need an entire industry and years to make it work safely. Maybe reality is somewhere in between and more nuanced? >>98848 >Maybe the sarcasm was too high for me. There was no sarcasm whatsoever. I rather have third worlders dig for lithium ore than have some stupid "diversity" policy put them in charge of operating a nuclear plant. Or any other critical infrastructure whatsoever. In short, the whole premise of these solarpunk threads is performative and clearly only centered at making posh upper middle class kids feel good and important. While souring the ideas to anyone sane and practically minded if utilized where appropriate. Hence the picture of Greta, a daughter of actors. We don't need fascism, and we don't need green fascism either. We also don't need to import an entire wage slave caste from Africa. Instead we need to do the boring and non sexy thing and focus on making existing processes more efficient and safe so that we have a basis to research and develop more potent alternatives while remaining calm and sane.

>>98857 >But a better idea would be to stop being reliant on chinese batteries and solar panels So you think Germany should start looking for other sources of silicon and Lithium, or do you think those technologies are just wastes of time? If it's the latter, you are sorely mistaken. >renew nuclear plants to modern standards does Germany have large uranium reserves, or would they become dependent on Canadian imports? >and have german engineers work on making engines more efficient and manufactured under Germany's strict environmental standards they already did that, and you seem to think that it as a bad idea. >Don't become economically dependent on them, even if it's "cheaper" in the short term. Too late for that. And, yeah, they absolutely should stop being so dependent on Chinese manufacturing. But it's delusional to think individual people can make a difference by refusing to buy Chinese products. For one, many people literally cannot afford that. For another, most companies will just lie about where their products were made. This is something that only the state can do. And we have to convince the state to start taking this soykaf seriously before they will do it. >Do you seriously believe there's no profit motif in solar and wind generators or the massive amount of rare earth batteries that this necessitates Obviously there is, that's why there is so much fraud and greenwashing that goes on. >You keep browbeating people with this emotional rhetoric what's emotional about recognizing that we are ruled by people who do not have interests aligned with ours? >Are you talking about nuclear and dams... yes, yes and yes. "better" means generating energy through methods that don't rely on petrochemicals and ideally have few moving parts. If you want to focus on ways of using less oil, sure, that can be a short-term solution. You're no better than the greenies you hate for your bias towards different technologies.

>>98857 >You just went from "evolution is like pokemons" to full on subjectivism. Fire you can make with some skill and sticks on a windy night, for nuclear energy you need an entire industry and years to make it work safely. Maybe reality is somewhere in between and more nuanced? i know that you know that this has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting teleological thinking, i.e. the entire crux of my argument. i know what you are trying to do and it's not going to work. looking at all your other responses it becomes even more obvious what you are trying to do, you're just throwing out all these bad faith pseudo-counterpoints to everything anyone says because you want to be the center of attention, you want the thread to be about you. you're lonely and you're bored and you don't know how to connect with other people or have meaningful social interactions so you are scraping the bottom of the barrel doing things like this just to get whatever you can. i would say that i pity you but that would be a lie at this point, there's so many of you doing so much of this nowadays that my sympathy ran out long ago, now it's just like a pestilence and i wish someone could spray some kind of poison or something to get rid of you.

>>98851 For better or worse, the evidence of any human evolution is rather slim. It all hinges on some few specimen found here, or there, and some datation which the further it goes into the past, the more unreliable it gets. C14 datation is notoriously known to get weaker and weaker, besides always assuming minimal contamination.

>>98857 >There was no sarcasm whatsoever. I rather have third worlders dig for lithium ore than have some stupid "diversity" policy put them in charge of operating a nuclear plant. Or any other critical infrastructure whatsoever. I see. I just didn't get this interpretation from your post. >n short, the whole premise of these solarpunk threads is performative and clearly only centered at making posh upper middle class kids feel good and important. While souring the ideas to anyone sane and practically minded if utilized where appropriate. Hence the picture of Greta, a daughter of actors. Saint Greta was the perfect mindless puppet. "How dare you!," glorified and rinsed by the medias, was one of the most forced pieces of acting ever performed on a soapbox. She didn't last for long so in order to pump her up for some credibility points her handlers thought about pushing her closer to realpolitics regarding the current situation in the Middle East. That didn't go well either. >Instead we need to do the boring and non sexy thing and focus on making existing processes more efficient and safe so that we have a basis to research and develop more potent alternatives while remaining calm and sane. I couldn't hear you over the sound of the new iPhone ad, sorry!

>>98852 >Everyone knows China needs to stop making coal plants No? Them spewing plastic detritus like India does worries me more than their yearly release of CO2. Let them plant trees in that western desert of theirs. The other problem being that they're so numerous that they consume tons of resources and there's still a vast portion of the country that is lagging behind. If the whole of China were to be fully updated to Western levels of resource consumption, we would have far more to worry about than airborne carbon. >Furthermore, there is literally zero reason why we cannot switch to better energy sources Which ones? In what are they better? >The energy required to recycle them is way more than the gains you get by doing so, and it would be better to switch to some other way of packaging goods. I'd think about sheets of tissue, perhaps dumped in specific oils to give them some elasticity and make them more resistant to strain. But only if such cultures were to done without requiring chemical to boost their yields.

Dams have strong limits. Leaving aside the ecological disasters which are quite negligeable at the larger scales, not all countries can exploit rivers that go through them. For one, some entire industries might already be dependeng on the current water flow. Secondly, rivers that are shared between nations are a massive source of tension already without even picturing the power dams into that. We could talk about geothermal energy, research in exploiting tides (I've seen some really bizarre ideas on this), growing plants, etc.

>>98450 >>98753 >>98839 >>98868 can we stop with this creepy greta thunberg little girl fixation already? i understand she is an adult now but like, come on, she became famous when she was a little girl and everyone in the world remembers her and knows her as the little girl on the news speaking out about climate change and we all remember the gross conservative pedos obsessively bashing this little girl and saying all kinds of weird sexual soykaf about her looks when she was still a little girl, the photos of her you've chosen to post in this thread just happen to be old photos from many years ago when she was still a little girl. it is very very obvious what you are and what is really going on in your mind and i don't want to know about it. stop talking about the little climate change activist girl, stop posting photos of the little climate change activist girl, stop clumsily broadcasting your weird obsession with little girls to the world like the typical serial killer who subconsciously wants to get caught. i don't want to know about you mutants or the things that arouse you, stay on the dark web and masturbate privately and stop trying to normalize what you do, stop letting yourself become emboldened by the fact that the us government is currently being run by pedophiles, it's still gross and weird, it will never not be gross and weird, the world will never accept you.

>>98867 The fuarrrk are you on about? There are literally hundreds of fossils found. There is more direct evidence for the evolution of humans than probably any other genus. >C14 gets weaker over time That's why it is useful...

>>98863 >you think Germany should start looking for other sources of silicon and Lithium As explained in >>98857 Germany should have kept what they were good at, optimizing the existing ICE and nuclear tech and manufacturing base while being much more careful at adopting EVs and wind/solar so development could be done on the side. Instead the skilled labor and manufacturing went either out of a job or abroad and Germany is back to burning coal while making China richer in exchange for crappy EVs and batteries that are built for the landfil. So not only have the greens been unwilling or cowardly to push against the real global polluters but have incentivized them to pollute even more! Truly amazing! It's like all they ever only cared about was to have control over domestic affairs while pretending to be some grand savior. >or would they become dependent on Canadian imports? Is Canada covered in thick smog on regular basis? Do their rivers catch fire? >Whoopsie, too late for that! Yes, regrettably the damage is already done, with hardly a way back. Germans and other Europeans have been sold a dirty lie and now will have to live with it somehow. Can you at least emphasize why I would be this antagonistic with the greens or their policies? Or are you going to continue to gaslight me that this is fine actually? Oh wait, you don't like gas, I almost forgot. The only thing that could save them is if fusion somehow ends up working but that's a 50/50 pipe dream. >it's delusional to think individual people can make a difference But how did politicians go for those suicidal "green" policies to begin with? >what's emotional about recognizing that we are ruled by people who do not have interests aligned with ours? Spoken like a true polititian. But all you're selling is an out of sight out of mind approach to pollution at the cost of innovation and everyone's prospects. >You're no better than the greenies you hate for your bias towards different technologies. Nice try but no, I despise the idiots who see every problem as a nail because all they've got is a toy hammer. Say, we had some sort of cool and awesome modular battery cell that hypothetically packed a megawatt per kilo, had a million recharge cycles until 80% max cap, wouldn't die in the summer or winter and was made out of cheap and nontoxic materials then obviously I couldn't argue against it. But this is not what we have, do we? Even LFE cells degrade rather quickly and that's what I prefer for my power banks. But these will be e-waste too. More typical are nickel cells because they initially pack about twice the wattage but also only go half the charge cycles. Your fancy Tesla will be a brick in just a few years unless you're willing to basically rebuy it and the rest lands on the landfill. I don't think that's particularly economical and one might be better off getting a used 20 year old beater instead. Say what you want but gas tanks don't do picrel. But you seem to be hellbent on getting rid of anything oil even though we are not talking of the gas guzzling american motors from the 70's that those peak oil calculations seem to be based on. Even if that policy is ruining european countries and stifles all future innovation and weight in the geopolitical sphere. Also did anyone tell you that those wind generators require oil to spin? The one not open to all possibilities is you. And the one fanatic about fixating on just one branch of the tech tree is also you. And I wouldn't even care if this wasn't the current policy here and so far it has been a reckless disaster. Maybe we will be able to back pedal with hybrids but things have been ruined for everyone after this, including the appeal of renewables, which could have been avoided if it had been approached with care. >>98866 >i know that you know that this has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting teleological thinking I don't even really know wtf you were on about but something about equating quali triggers my spidie senses for the sort of subjectivist word games that are partially responsible for leading people astray and into the mess we're in. I agree partially with what you've said too and sure, on a far enough zoomed out view, definitions and details might blend together at some point, but on a concrete and practical human scale there's a stark difference between taming fire and harnessing the power of the atom. And that's also the scale the argument resides on. Hope you understand and won't stay mad. Also living more decentrally is a luxury lifestyle only the affluent will enjoy. Pods for everyone else, especially if we stay on this path of green fascism. >>98872 You're correct, dams are very geographically/politically dependent. But so are wind and solar farms. China for instance has loads of either contaminated or non arable land that's suited for little else. But they also have 62 nuclear plants at the same time. Meanwhile a northern European pasture is probably more useful for sheep farming. Those other techs are interesting but with the current economy and politics good luck developing any of those, aside of maybe geothermal in Iceland. >>98867 >the evidence of any human evolution is rather slim Bro, did you ever visit a Walmart? >>98873 The UN and EU taking policy advice from a little tard girl's drama improv will never not be funny, say whatever you want. And never forget that the same people believe they're your betters!

>>98880 >you're gaslighting me I guess I am just a stand-in for people you don't like, then. If there's anyone trying to gaslight here, it's you. It is painfully obvious that you are the politically motivated one here, attempting to win "points" for your "side", otherwise you would be trying to engage in a productive discussion. Instead, every single post you make is an attack, you refuse to look for common ground, even ignoring it when I offer plenty, opting instead to go for childish rhetorical "gotchas". You're a sophist, plain and simple.

>>98873 >sTOp aTtACkiNg gREtA yOU pEdOS!!!! Calm down Karen, pedos aren't proliferating in your screen right now. It will be fine. Chill and breathe, slowly.

>>98877 >The fuarrrk are you on about? There are literally hundreds of fossils found. There's at most a dozen full specimens. Then there is the thousands of very small parts that archeologists have to categorize. The rest is scientists trying to patch up the huge gaps while working with "individuals" which can get comical when considering how some branches share elements and how there is variability within those branches and even overlapping which means there's a fair amount of assumptions going on, all at the same time having to deal with constant changes of definitions in species, which happens a lot today for animals and the rules used for that (sterility for example) which create more troubles (see Christopher Stringer, who certainly has made a lot of friends). Scientists lump all modern humans into the same group despite huge anatomical differences while obviously going for very absurd stances because of modern cultural taboos and professional risks to their careers. >That's why it is useful... The datings' quality gets weaker to the point of becoming very mediocre beyond 50-60K years. As I said it can also be affected by other environmental parameters that screw with the accuracy of the method: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/06/new-radiocarbon-cycle-research-may-alter-history, https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/problems-with-carbon-14-dating-method/ Variations can be considerable even for periods not that far removed from our current time, while the concept of linearity of the decay rate happens to be debate from time to time. Unfortunately it's been so misused that Creationists jumped on these failures and inaccuracies to champion their views. Nevertheless we simply cannot blindly rely on C14 dating so quickly and this affect the measurements made for hominins, despite other methods being also available.

serious question: how do we protect our society from psychopaths like >>98880 who will go to such extreme lengths and devote so much effort into spreading lies and derailing intelligent discourse with tidal waves of bullshit that no sane person is equipped to deal with? in the old days, this wasn't so much of a problem because people like this would eventually be exposed and democratically shunned by the rest of the group, kicked out of the meeting hall, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, etc. but obviously we can't do that on the internet. the bad actors try to claim that we can and whine about imaginary "cancel culture" but nobody really gets cancelled, they continue to pollute the world with their bullshit and find platforms and audiences no matter how many people get sick of them. the problem is, we have somehow allowed these bad actors to pervert the concept of free speech into some kind of religious absolutism where everything any person says must be listened to and endured by everyone at all times, where every bold-faced lie and nonsensical delusion is granted automatic validity and warrants a lengthy fair hearing at the expense of everyone else's valuable time. i think the only solution is just spreading awareness. if everyone in society were more aware of the bad actors and their usual tactics and could recognize all of the common red flags, then perhaps people would not engage so much, they might identify them right away and not engage at all, they might identify them earlier and disengage quickly and not be motivated by sunk costs to continue engaging after realizing that they are bad actors, these mutants could be shunned as they deserve to be and we could spend more time having productive discussions and less time dealing with them.

>>98894 I've been a bit lost trying to know what >>98863 and >>98880 are disagreeing on. It's good to remember that there are many ways to kill topics, including derailments done by two people from the same party pretending disagreeing and pushing the main topic sideways. But the real main topic, solarpunk, has been left to die on the wayside for ages already and has been about criticizing the greening policies that are more often than not based on mistakes or fraudulent ideas.

>>98882 >no u Where did I say anything wrong though? Not only have greens been unwilling to address the main polluting nations of China and India but they directly contributed to them to pollute even more by paying them to mass produce tech that simply wasn't ready for it yet. Most of which will be waste, and this all could have been avoided. This is worse than simple hypocrisy. But of course it's much easier to make excuses while instead for instance legalistically harassing local farmers and running them out of the market artificially. My best guess with that is that the rulers tried to centralize food production by benefiting the vertical farm businesses of their tech bro friends but those ended up being a failure as well, since as you correctly pointed out, too many moving parts can be an issue. >It is painfully obvious that you are the politically motivated one here Duh, yes! To you this might be all games but under the clearly false guise of "saving the planet" I have to watch my electricity bill double and triple, read news about yet another long standing company or manufacturer going down or leave with no substitute, watch an economic, technological and consequently cultural decline taking place in slow-motion. And watch people who didn't have to, to struggle and becoming angry as well, making me wonder what the possible political future ramifications of this could possibly be. "Solarpunk" under the current circumstances is without a doubt inherently political. >you refuse to look for common ground I presented a scenario where I would immediately and wholeheartedly change my mind. I would even be happy with less than what I stated. But did you provide a condition where you would do the same? Would you change your mind if it turns out the methodology behind calculating "peak oil" is bunk? If using and optimizing current polluting tech turns out to be critical to develop more efficient and less polluting alternatives? If the world isn't going to end in 12 more years so we should remain calm and deliberate rather than frantically panicking and making very bad and drastic decisions in haste? Or when it turns out there is as much financial and political incentive to change things to one way even if it's harmful in the end as there is to retain the status quo? Who again is the dogmatic one of us? Furthermore I would also change my opinion if things somehow turn out to be fine in the end if the new tech and infrastructure somehow manages to mature over night but this has yet to arrive while having had wiser and less destructive strategies available. Besides, the only thing that can actually save solar and wind energy aren't silly larp threads like these, but difficult to depend on breakthroughs in material research and mass manufacturing. But guess what, this needs cheap and reliable power and infrastructure, oil and gas is still very instrumental to that. And this is ignoring the logistic nightmare of providing large populations with high-tech decentralized dwellings or the failings of the social and humanitarian aspects of green policies. Again, I wouldn't even care about you play pretend if aspects of the "solarpunk" idea pool wasn't already part of official policy where I live and where I can watch it fail right before my eyes. It has become apparent to me and many others that the greens are the enemy of the European people and humanity as a whole. Figuring out how to retain the base sentiment of protecting the environment while removing the dimwitted, self serving and tyrannical elements is critical. >>98896 A bad actor to you is someone who pokes holes into your bullshit narratives and I already guessed that you would love nothing more than to put me on a train if you could. But again, where was I wrong? You may even decry what I say as poison, and to some extent I would agree, but it is poison against what is an unimpressive aesthetic at best, and a massive humanitarian disaster when attempted in the real world at the current state of tech. And no, you can't protect yourself from it by hiding in your little echo chamber and shutting down criticism. Because this will not make the source of the discontent vanish. Not in myself, not in all the others who feel similarly. >>98895 >scientists trying to patch up the huge gaps The problem is that whenever you discover a missing link, it automatically creates two new gaps to the before and after of it, because finding all the ancestor's and descendant's remains in a neat genealogical order is impossible. We simply have to live with what we can get. >>98897 Thing is I do want renewables to succeed. But for this I believe "solarpunk" must first die as it attracts the fools who can't discern practical reality from lofty fiction. And stop the "green" policies which push adjacent ideas, and its consequent abject failures. The anti-thesis to green fascism will be the now rising wave of populism. And once the people negatively affected get into power, they will likely over-correct, this means not only will we have missed out on improving existing tech but also will reject other promising options. European leadership has pushed this too aggressively too soon so in the end we ended up wasting massive resources and time, many billions on infrastructure which will get abandoned or ends up on the landfill, but also the potential to properly develop multiple different technologies at once. I'm just a pragmatic guy who sees the ship on a trajectory which is already scraping the side of the ice berg while the captain is insisting that all is fine and proceeds to belittle me and remove my kind of opinion from the discussion. So much potential has been squandered and Europe will go through some tough and underwhelming times thanks to all of this. >>98893 Reminder that UN and EU officials based their policy decisions, at least in part, on the fake outburst of a retarded looking actor child, never forget this! These are the people calling themselves "smart"!

>>98901 >You may even decry what I say as poison, and to some extent I would agree, but it is poison against what is an unimpressive aesthetic at best, and a massive humanitarian disaster when attempted in the real world at the current state of tech. dude get over yourself. your words are not "poison", they are not a clever calculated weapon that targets and destroys your enemies, they are just soykaf. brown stinky mindlessly-produced fecal matter that stinks up the entire room and stinks up everything it comes in contact with, particularly yourself, and makes everyone around you gag and want to get the hell away from you. the things you say don't affect any meaningful change in the world at all, they are just a nuisance, like a sewage leak.

>>98901 >Reminder that UN and EU officials based their policy decisions, at least in part, on the fake outburst of a retarded looking actor child, never forget this! These are the people calling themselves "smart"! Plu-eeze. That was just for the plebes. The officials were way ahead of this, along with their handlers.

>>94577 I installed a solar energy system at home. It's pretty comfy.

Guys, you're too grim. I feel like the utopian vision of a politically neutral solarpunk has been lost. Perhaps you think the greened up feelgoods are too gay for your tastes but I'd love to go to a chill solarpunk city, even if it lasted only twenty years, filled with educated citizens and no bizarre people and their mental idiosyncrasies. I mean, picking young people from the early sixties and going all forestial and post-new-age.

https://www.annasorokinaart.com/ https://discord.com/invite/Xg7CXZbQHp Have these evolved for good? Where's OP btw?

>>99086 What a nice blank page https://nflatrea.bearblog.dev/the-low-tech-manifesto/

>>99085 solarpunk can't be politically neutral, any more than those "trad" memes can be. It espouses a vision of the future that is logically incompatible with many political ideologies, and therefore those ideologies must oppose it. On the grounds that it is "impractical", of course. >no bizarre people and their mental idiosyncrasies >young people from the early sixties what?

>>99085 >filled with educated citizens and no bizarre people and their mental idiosyncrasies there's a very fine line between utopianism and fascism and you just stumbled right over it. i think that utopianism is an intellectual trap and the very idea of a "perfect world" is a dangerous and arrogant thing to even consider. perfect for whom and for what? every person, every living thing for that matter, has their own particular needs and desires, has their own sets of priorities, the things they consider to be most important in their lives, and we each think that our priority is the right priority. perhaps it's not our place to try to decide what is best for the entire world and we shouldn't even engage in such talk at all, we should just keep our concerns and our ambitions local when it comes to material things and save our global thinking for immaterial relationships such as our empathic connection with ourselves and each other and other lifeforms. instead of trying to figuring out how to restructure all of material reality to somehow align with all of our individual needs and desires, which is absurd, or compromising our individual needs and desires because they don't fit in with the utopian structure that we have devised, which is also absurd, we should address the real problem, which is our inability and unwillingness to function as a collective whole. it's not the world that is fuarrrked up, it is us. we don't like each other, we don't understand each other, we don't care about each other, we don't know how to communicate with each other. we mistakenly think that immaterial relationships follow the same rules that govern material things, where nothing can be created or destroyed and you can't have abundance in one place without causing scarcity in another, in other words we cannot connect too deeply with each other or else we will lose our individuality, we cannot empathize with another person too deeply or else we will cease to empathize with ourselves. but that's not how it works at all, we can and do have it both ways and the historical record clearly demonstrates that fact, we are still as individualistic as we ever were despite how much more connected we have become. it's sort of like the irrational fear that parents sometimes feel when they are about to have their second child, they worry that their love for their first child will be diminished, that it will have to be divided between two children, but then the moment they actually see the newborn child they realize they were completely wrong and their love has not divided but has in fact multiplied, in defiance of all material law. material reality is simply too vast and complex and the laws that govern it are too strict and immutable for us to try to control it and it is arrogant and foolish to even try, but that might not be true for immaterial reality, it might be possible for all human beings to connect their minds together and overcome all social barriers and function as a collective hivemind while still retaining all of their individual personalities and beliefs and bizarreness and idiosyncrasies, a hivemind that can govern itself directly without the need for any hierarchy or rulers or coercion or punishment, that can discover things and create things that no individual human could even conceive of, that could live in harmony with material reality in a way that discrete competitive humanity never could manage. and that kind of mental awakening would obviate the need for any new utopian world, any restructuring of material reality, because the material world would effectively become a utopia exactly as it is, we would not need to alter it to conform to us because we will have already altered ourselves to conform to it. i don't know how we could achieve something like this, probably through a lot of research into neuroscience and a lot of disciplined meditation and a lot of experimentation with extremely powerful psychotropic drugs, which probably sounds very silly and idealistic and absurd to someone who operates solely in a materialist framework, but i think it's less absurd of a proposition than thinking that humans have the prerogative or the wherewithal to reinvent their entire world to suit their agendas.

>>99097 >Instead of trying to restructure reality to align with our needs, instead of trying to restructure our needs to align with reality, we should instead restructure our species to operate as a cohesive organized unit acting as if under one mind, one authority. One people, one unit, one will. Or to put it into the words of the most prominent painter of century XX, see pic related.

This post is meant for communal organization. I’ve been thinking about the overall logistical layout of the mechanics of co-living spaces for singularists and solarpunk, and I need more technically minded people for that. So basically I think they should look like this (hilariously bad drawing but you can grasp the overall layout), white silicone on touch that replicates natural structures in order to look uninhabited or at least discreet from a spacial point. Eco-bases and oxygen borns naturally inside. And yeah they should look porous or mycelial.

>>99098 hitler's definition of "restructuring our species" was just another iteration of the same old western arrogance and top-down thinking that i was criticizing, our biology - the thing that hitler was talking about restructuring - obviously falls into the category of material reality and hitler was a hardline materialist and did not believe in anything other than material reality, he considered human empathy to be a form of mental illness and human morality to be nothing more than a delusion for disenfranchising the powerful in favor of the weak. there really wasn't anything very unique or novel about hitler at all, other than maybe his brazenness in making such claims, claims that pretty much all people in positions of great power tend to agree with wholeheartedly but are too afraid to say it out loud. put hitler's rhetoric side by side with the rhetoric of marxists or capitalists or any other western ideology and you'll find lots of parallels, lots of shared assertions about material conditions being the only thing that matters, about morality and empathy being idealistic delusions, about the "progress" of humanity and evolution, about humans being the center of the universe, etc. you're trying to imply that i have something in common with hitler because i spoke of humans breaking down social barriers and fully realizing their empathic connection with one another, which is the exact opposite of what hitler wanted, a world where the great aryan master race mindmelds with all the subhuman filth in the rest of the world, the very thing he devoted his entire life to trying to prevent. his idea of altering humanity was a top-down purging of all the undesireables by an elite vanguard, my idea of altering humanity was individual humans voluntarily expanding their knowledge and perception, i.e. the thing humans have already been doing naturally from the start and would probably be doing a lot more of without the constant pushback from the forces of ideology. but that's not to say i don't have anything in common with hitler, i think i probably have quite a lot in common with hitler in the way i tend to think and the things i tend to believe and that anyone else born in western society and indoctrinated with western thinking probably does too, probably far more than they realize or could ever admit.

>>99085 >>99091 I guess hippies. I'm not sure to get the appeal but if that's the idea then this, but this time not going sloppy and retarded through drug abuse and stupid ideas.

>>99097 >a hivemind that can govern itself directly without the need for any hierarchy or rulers or coercion or punishment That reads as very self contradictory, and historically nearly all societies ran by following strict rules and taboos, all under the surveillance of godly powers. This is why there must be common laws and principles, clear, with known punishments, and then liberty to do the good things. It's a fine balance that clever societies have known to manage. Besides, the world we live in does beg for macromanagement, but what we observe today is far too restrictive and follows totally inverted rules, negative rules that hurt the people. Almost all nations are thrown into chaos and those that would have miraculously dodged the bullet are pressured to get into the ranks. >>99098 That didn't work well the last time it was tried and it would be a hard sell to Americans, even if I am not sure if Europoors and their millennia of traditions would gasp at it.

>>98903 >u a stinky poopoo Woah, go easy on me with that intellectual prowess of yours! >they are not a clever calculated weapon that targets and destroys your enemies So then why is all that you people are able to reply with insults and potty speech and nothing else? Which of what I've said was wrong? It's clear that this thread isn't talking about solarpunk as a mere fictional genre and engages in world building, but instead circle jerking about ideas for real world applications and policies which have been already in part been attempted in my country with the effect being: - enriching China, a reckless global polluter, and incentivizing them to pollute even more - destroying significant chunks of the little domestic manufacturing which was still left - massively increasing the cost of living for the regular citizen who's now commonly against any "green" measures on principle due to this, and also how simply blatantly stupid the implementation was - knee-capping Europe from facilitating the innovation and improvements in efficiency and technology which is required to achieve this fantastic green dream Basically setting us back and you can't even acknowledge this. I don't even care any more to change the world, just telling you how absolutely dumb and retarded you solarpunkers are by trying to speak some sense to you and the first hand witnessing of how stupid it is. >>98906 They were still clapping and cheering for her as if everyone should take the rehearsed drama act of a child seriously. Like the absolute clowns they are in the gayest and lamest circus. >>98915 That's pretty cool actually. What's the wattage and savings? >>99085 >I feel like the utopian vision of a politically neutral solarpunk has been lost. Socialism (in the broadest sense) is a metaphysical organism, an egregore, literally a meme, which feeds on some dark aspects of the human psyche, by which it propagates itself. Solarpunk is just an other attempt of it repackaging itself to something possibly more appealing, like a virus evolving into a more benign variant of itself, just look up those manifests that were linked in earlier threads. Now I believe there's a way to salvage it to something more non-political but you probably wouldn't like it and I don't see it happening here. Since the aim appears to be to concoct a mode of being which at scale indeed is not practical. And I don't think a society of drugged up teenager philosopher kings would change that. But maybe you could have a yuppified version of a trailer park that siphons electricity from a nearby town and in other ways relies on their infrastructure so you could have your direct democracy solar power commune. In fact I'm the last person to stop you from attempting that. >>99097 >i think that utopianism is an intellectual trap and the very idea of a "perfect world" is a dangerous and arrogant thing to even consider. Sensible point, envisioning some final and ultimate destination for which any sacrifice is justified is the recipe for the greatest human tragedies. But what I believe is possible is betterment and improvement of mankind by promoting better people who also believe in something greater than themselves and their own bottom line. Also not falling for some new shiny thing while it's still not proven its validity, like it happened in Europe. >perfect for whom and for what? Also valid, there is no perfect, but good in my estimate would be to maximize the space for each to try and do their own thing. Now if the majority (or an influential minority) decides to go in a particular way in unison then this should be at least considerate of others and not just go ahead and try some botched attempt at uprooting the entire energy infrastructure and ending up wasting more scarce resources than less, for example. But even if they go in direction that's broadly accepted as beneficial, you're still right that this will still step on some people, but that's inevitable even with inaction and still much better than some asinine "great leap forwards". But I also think we're in a dilemma of tough choices where we have to keep swimming, to add a shark analogy. The good thing is that we might even require to have some struggle in our lives but yes, we also shouldn't add some horrible behavioral sink on top either. >but then the moment they actually see the newborn child they realize they were completely wrong and their love has not divided but has in fact multiplied, in defiance of all material law. Still weird to be the middle child. But the good thing is if you've got enough kids, they eventually can start raising each other, given you did a good job with your first ones. >material reality is simply too vast and complex and the laws that govern it are too strict and immutable for us to try to control it and it is arrogant and foolish to even try Also true, anything else is sheer hubris, however what we can to is try to develop better strategies, tech and social frameworks and principles which allow us to not be blown aside by any recurring breeze. For instance the peak-oil argument is stupid in many ways since we did overcome the scarcity that was initially projected by simply making better use of it with better extraction methods and more efficient machines and engines. While for the true greens there wouldn't be anything better to happen than us running out of oil since that would automatically make other means mandatory. They must be seething over the fact that this hasn't happened yet. Not sure about the hivemind part since I'm somewhat of an individualism enjoyer but >i don't know how we could achieve something like this, probably through a lot of research into neuroscience and a lot of disciplined meditation and a lot of experimentation with extremely powerful psychotropic drugs, One idea is to simply raise great men who care about the wellbeing of others. And I'm not talking about non "toxic masculinity" weak beta males who have to resort to passive aggression, but men of positive masculinity and a belief in themselves, their fellow people and possibly something greater than them. And enough of those in circulation and they will compete with the selfish psychopaths in power. It's probably no wonder why our modern "education" is messing everyone up so much.. >>99098 Addie probably would've loved solarpunk, bro was hardcore into naturschutz! >>99103 Are you suggesting for people to live in silicon coated caves? What would be the dimensions of that structure? Also you would have to allocate a considerable portion of that space to some algae-based oxygen generator, like if these pods are apartment room sized then there would barely be enough space for the single person sustained by it. And I don't want to be the guy pointing out the most glaring OSHA violations but where are the fire exits and so on? >>99137 You both seem to fondle the same elephant from different ends. I hope to have provided some middle ground at least. Either way, I'm still not convinced that any solarpunker who thinks they're working on the next utopia is anything more but some dumb kids lost in their own soup or taken their own larping too close to heart. Ofc if some insane major breakthrough happens in batteries and renewable energy generators and manufacturing tomorrow, all at the same time, I will eat my own words but until then I'm still waiting to have my mind changed on that.

>>99138 do you have to self-flagellate every time you make a bad decision and give yourself a reward every time you make a good decision?

>>99141 I think someone said in one of the older threads that solarpunk's only chance was through fascism. At first I thought this premise entirely stupid, but more than a year later I have come to give this idea a chance. The reason for this is my disfranchisement regarding the current models and systems. All of them suck, all of them fail, all of them are based on a high degree of lies and betrayal of the populations to an extent that is not only unique in mankind's history, but extremely perverted too. But no matter what is said, I've never seen the accusation of lying to the people ever lifted against fascists. With a lack of solutions that I find appealing I'm now willing to engage for the worse, or perhaps I should say for the lesser evil. Therefore I go to this place not because it is hopeless but because I need hope where there is none in the current setup and I am done chasing subversive unicorns.

>>99157 The world order right now is fascism. Democracy is a big lie, mere propaganda. Merger of state and corporate power happened long ago, that's why the big corpos are allowed to get away with so much - they're shadow branches of the government. The fascists are lying because they're pretending not to be fascist, they're tyrants pretending politics are real when they're just fabricated justifications to appease the masses.

>>99157 >I think someone said in one of the older threads that solarpunk's only chance was through fascism. At first I thought this premise entirely stupid, but more than a year later I have come to give this idea a chance. yeah you're not alone, pretty much everyone is feeling this way now, about everything, thinking that their ends justify any means necessary, that whatever thing it is they personally want to see happen is worth turning our entire society into a fascist regime for. people think it's just dumb christian far-right conservatives who think that way, and maybe it was at first, but now it's probably like 90% of the western population, fascism and narcissism and childishness are so normalized and internalized that everyone seems to think that way now, regardless of their political alignment, all they care about is getting the thing that they want. and the thing that they want is always so trivial and stupid, it's always some superficial aesthetic preference, like wanting to live inside of a utopian futurist painting, to the point where you don't even care about the actual ethos of decentralization or sustainability or egalitarianism behind solarpunk, you just want to be able to look around at some grass-covered domes and solar panels and windmills and stuff and say "neat!" this culture is dumber than rocks and devoid of taste and doesn't even deserve an aesthetic like that anyway, you people don't deserve anything cool or futuristic at all, you don't even deserve the gaudy polished-chrome and rgb-vomit gamer/nightclub aesthetic that you have now. you deserve to live in a village made out of mud, and not even nice mud that has been thoughtfully prepared and fired into bricks to build pueblos, but just straight-up mud, big blobs of wet mud that melt and have to be rebuilt every time it rains.

>>99158 Did you mean tyrannical, which is the abuse of power at the expense of duties? By now, the proper yard stick should not be if the amount of power in the hands of a few is legitimate or not, but what the consequences of its application. If the effect is a net positive, I think I'm ready to eschew the noisy democracy because it's divisive, it goes nowhere, and it's above all one big lie. Power will always be a plaything for elites so the real question is if this elite is on our side or not. A world cannot be healed if its foundations are vile and corrupt. The stupidity of it anyway. >>99180 >all they care about is getting the thing that they want. Why not honestly? The altruistic tale has been nothing but a pus filled cake and only one group played fair while all others cheated for their own benefit. If sloparunk is supposed to bring us closer to the message of nature, isn't one of its main values about violence and fighting for resources in a selfish or in-group way? Instead of longing for a superficial object that is very abstract in essence and which only wears nature as a veneer? I mean I'm not even against the power blimp thingies honestly, they look funny and likely cheap to produce if done well, while needing none of the rare materials that everybody on this planet keeps yapping about, but I feel that it's a good allegory for what this childish ideology is, what with having our heads up in the clouds. This simply cannot work. Mind you, have you paid attention? A definitive subset of sloparunk is all about collapsism which is a thinly veiled call for total violence and selfishness.

>>99265 >Why not honestly? because the laws of physics and mathematics don't allow for everyone getting the thing they want, especially when all the wants are completely different and often contradictory. the digital world may be willing to tickle everyone's absurd fancies, but reality is a real hardass and doesn't care about what anyone wants.

>>94577 Solar-punk shows how internet ruins everything it touches. Someone could have made something cool out of it. Not even specifically solar punk, but just the idea of thinking up better futures. Instead we get snickers who think that one Danish down-looking girl will rape them in their sleep and steal all their money. And other hand you have people who think adding solar panels and brown people everywhere will save the world. Never change internet. If someone can salvage solarpunk I think it has a future. I doubt anyone will though

>>99279 i mean, as i understand it, solarpunk began as a literary sci fi sub-genre and that's all it really ever was supposed to be, so the cool thing it was supposed to achieve was already achieved before the internet ever got ahold of it. contrary to what people like sam altman or the church of scientology would have you believe, science fiction is meant to ask questions, not answer them. science fiction stories are just speculation about what things could possibly be like in the future, not a blueprint that people are supposed to follow to create a particular future.

>>99280 I don't disagree with anything you said. I just meant that this thing has actually a big potential as an art "movement" which is unrealized. There's no great solarpunk novel from what I gather. And when people ask about visual arts, you usually see things recommended such as Miyazaki films. Which strikes me a bit as weird. Wouldn't you want to make something new? If I type 'solarpunk' into youtube I get clips of a game that just got released, but the second video after that is a yogurt commercial. Followed by a DamiLee video. No real clue who she is, but she looks hot. Sure, I'm having unrealistic standards to a degree. But if you don't dream big life is boring.

>>99281 >There's no great solarpunk novel from what I gather there's a bunch of well known solarpunk novels, that's what started this whole thing to begin with, pretty much all of cory doctorow's best known work falls into the solar punk category personally i think it doesn't make for particularly interesting science fiction storywise, since chaos and conflict and social dysfunction are kind of what makes a story interesting to read imo. but a lot of people enjoy those kinds of more utopian type sci-fi stories, it's what most early classic sci fi was and a lot of people just want to read something to cheer them up and escape from their modern dystopian misery. and with dystopian/post-apocalyptic type sci-fi being such a popular and oversaturated subgenre, it suppose it feels sort of subversive in a way to write a more optimistic view about the future. the kind of sci fi i would probably be most interested in these days would be something that's neither utopian future nor dystopian future, but a future that is just very bizarre and has almost no analog in modern reality at all, to the point where you don't really know how to feel about it, whether it's a good future or a bad future, it's just a strange future. i think that style of speculation is a lot more interesting and probably a lot more true to life if you really look back at the historical record, reality always ends up being a lot stranger than fiction. imagine going back in time and telling isaac asimov about 21st century humans using a global network of interlinked supercomputers to watch a video of two girls eating their own feces and puking it into each other's mouths.

>>99283 Utopian sci-fi doesn't have to lack conflict. The Dispossessed is a really good example. >imagine going back in time and telling isaac asimov about 21st century humans using a global network of interlinked supercomputers to watch a video of two girls eating their own feces and puking it into each other's mouths. Isaac Asimov lived during a time when guys would go to a movie theater to watch porn and jerk off in the theater. Also peep shows were a thing. Also, he lived at a time when the telephone was already widely available, and people imagined global communication networks for centuries. He'd be disgusted and intrigued, but not very surprised.

>>99275 Sure, but the point is that if you find enough people wanting the same thing as you do, that your interests collectively align into a powerful synergy, why not form a clan amidst the chaos and do what you want, according to your shared values? Would this mean war? Likely, yes, but at least for once in your life you will have tasted pure freedom, your mind and flesh relieved from this alienating industrial domestication. In a way, drug cartels do that, but we don't have to become drug producers or sellers to aspire to that kind of freedom that's painted by the tip of knives and the music of guns. If we're moving into a techno-feudal society, then this is what we will revert to at some point, conflicts, truces and law of the strongest overall. This does not exclude a possbility to become some kind of greener renegade, grabbing tech as you see fit such as solar panels and other things, but overall you would strive to live a simpler life while striving to recover lost wisdom.

>>99275 >especially when all the wants are completely different and often contradictory well, only when that is the case. If everyone wanted nothing it would be trivially easy for everyone to get what they want. In any case, is it always the case that our wants are completely different and contradictory? Is there not broad agreement on many basic things, such as a preference to avoid unnecessary violence?

>>99280 It wasn't even a literature sub-genre, it was a vague vision purely based on a combination of pro-green naivety and leftist social justice. It could have been planted by the higher powers as part of a culture war for all we know, just to see how far it would go. Then it struggled to legitimize itself so it tried to grab all it could identify as superficially connected to a variable set of principles, mostly based on visual clues and sensations. Try-hard emulsion as it was, it even attempted to claim for itself the works of Miyazaki. But this badly structured and almost formless so called sub-genre is already splitting at the seams and going in different directions. Some push for more technology, others for more social justice, and there's even a pessimist branch that smears post-first-world ruins with seeds and bushes in its illustrations. In other words I think it's almost aborted before it even had the capacity to grow a spine, even if short. The fact it also lines up with Davos guidelines has prevented it from being accepted by a wider crowd within our niche ecosystem of social rejects. What you see in these threads is at best a drifting motion towards some sort of right winged appropriation. The fact that some people have even mentioned fascism is telling as there's one known figure who went from a strong left to lead Fascism itself, but back then trees and flowers were certainly not part of the picture and I am not sure why they would be included today, although I am not up to date about the natural sensibilities of these movements. I for one can't even comprehend this because if anything, solarpunk seems to be calling for more independence and decentralization through the manifestation of a New Western Front, but laced with floralism. However, the abundance of high technologies that the "movement" implies means that necessary industries and their core hierarchies that must exist to produce them also are conveniently sidelined, which is not honest at all. So if this bizarre and abstract thought form wishes to survive it may very well have to find a middle ground between more radical political influences yet without conceding anything towards late capitalism, while at the same time managing to retain control over core industrial sectors. It's as if the whole model was supposed to be about an archipelago of villages around industrial centers. Definitely a new and weird form of territorial planning.

>>98805 What are those and where were these experiments ran? The maintenance cost must have been crazily high.

>>99299 afaict these are artistic renderings and their experimental installations are pretty small.

I have no idea if it is doable but solar roads do not appear realistic to me since roads take a lot of damage per year. Perhaps each tile is covered with a thick and replaceable transparent sheet. A rough search returns a compay doing it. Perhaps one big scam, I have the hardest time opening it. https://solarroadways.com/ There's an article about this tech which comes with a pinch of criticism. https://8msolar.com/solar-roads-paving-the-future/ I don't buy it one moment. If the transparent surface is sleek, it will be very dangerous. If it is etched with criss-crossing lines or grainy, slightly abrasive, it will rapidly collect dirt and require frequent cleaning. That is doable but it will require specialized equipment, thorough cleaning procedures, lots of water, all of which will block traffic until the road has been brushed and dried squeaky clean. The surface will likely quickly lose its transparency. The efficiency would likely be less than clean solar panels. All of this says nothing of the costs. Check the list of components: >The Components of Solar Roads >Solar roads are complex systems made up of several key components: > Photovoltaic Cells: These are the heart of the solar road, converting sunlight into electricity. Unlike traditional solar panels, these cells need to be more durable and able to function efficiently even when not angled directly towards the sun. > Protective Layer: A durable, transparent material that allows sunlight to reach the solar cells while protecting them from damage. This layer needs to be incredibly strong to withstand the weight of heavy vehicles, resist cracking and chipping, and provide adequate traction in all weather conditions. > Base Layer: This provides structural support and houses the electrical components. It needs to be weather-resistant and able to withstand the constant vibrations from traffic. > LED Lights: Embedded lights for road markings and signage. These can be programmed to change based on traffic conditions or to provide warnings about hazards ahead. > Heating Elements: To melt snow and ice in colder climates. This feature could potentially reduce the need for salt application, which can be harmful to the environment. > Sensors: To monitor traffic, weather conditions, and the road’s performance. These sensors could provide real-time data to traffic management systems and maintenance crews. > Energy Storage and Distribution Systems: Batteries or capacitors to store excess energy for use during low-light conditions, and systems to feed electricity back into the grid. > Pressure-Sensitive Sensors: Some designs include sensors that can detect the weight and movement of vehicles, potentially useful for traffic monitoring or even detecting accidents. > >Each of these components must work together under constant mechanical stress, weather exposure, and heavy vehicle loads—a far harsher environment than a standard rooftop solar installation. We haven't even begun accounting for recycling in the cost of normal solar panels.

>>99298 >it was a vague vision purely based on a combination of pro-green naivety and leftist social justice Do you think cyberpunk as a literary genre wasn't also this? The only difference is that cyberpunk authors depict the world as it is while solarpunk authors depict the world how they would like it to be.

>>99309 >Do you think cyberpunk as a literary genre wasn't also this? Which one of the two genres appears more honest and anti-tech to you? >>99309 >The only difference is that cyberpunk authors depict the world as it is while solarpunk authors depict the world how they would like it to be. With something like, what, three of maybe four threads already, I think you will find all the answers you seek in the archives.

>>99309 >what we want >>93565 Pass.

I found something by accident. Before the second thread was archived towards last year's end, a mod got all pissy and felt like deleting a funny post for no good reason.

>>99303 imagine if the power went out in your house because of the potholes all over your soykafty town

>>99309 >>99298 "cyberpunk" was not initially called that, it was originally called The Movement before it became a marketing label from critics, the concept of a cyberpunk was always tongue in cheek and over-the top, calling it ironic would be a stretch (except in some later cases, like Snow Crash) however. It was dramatic excess in the same way as gothic or romantic literature. Solarpunk, likewise, is a name that was given to literature and other media in the same backwards fashion, especially Ursula Le Guin and her circle. ironically, it actually is a slightly older tendency than Gibson and his cohort, but is more or less part of the same movement in science fiction as it was responding to many of the same things. But you're correct in saying the name is superfluous, the name "cyberpunk" was superfluous as well, although it perhaps worked better because kitschy pessimism wasn't something that the genre needed to distance itself from. At least to you. I think it can be good to examine why that is - There's obviously people who *prefer* solarpunk, due to the fatigue they experienced with *dark and gritty, pessimistic* media that we were basically flooded with throughout the 90s and 2000s. But as for me, I can't say I prefer one label or the other because I think this sort of genre conformism is woefully overrepresented in art in general, and the vision of the movement is lost on work that takes itself too seriously anyway.

>>99340 >it was originally called The Movement before it became a marketing label from critics when was this? The term itself was coined in one of the earliest recognizably cyberpunk short stories. What are some things you would consider part of "The Movement" before 1980?

>>99341 >the coin was termed in one of the most well known collections Yes and if you took care to read my post, you'd know I said that the identity of "cyberpunk" was always meant to mean something slightly ridiculous. >"The Movement" It's in Mirrorshades lain, sorry if you're not familiar. >Examples? Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 1968. The Man in the High Castle. A Clockwork Orange, 1962. Most things by Vonnegut. Ballard. Gibson was late, having published his first short story in 1977. This was the punk side of the new wave of scifi, which Le Guin was very much a part of too.

>>99340 The difference being that cyberpunk didn't look like some orphan touring the districts in the hope of finding proxy parents. The identity of cyberpunk was clear and strong and its origins solidly established, contrary to that other abortion chiefly based on some yoghurt ad and then backpedalling at full speed in order to claim for itself anything vaguely compliant with its premise. Having local power plants used by independent groups of inhabitants is nothing new in science fiction, especially when in cohabitation with advanced technologies. We had colonies on isolated places or planets for ages. To take a very well known license, in Star Wars the Lars manage a small farm drenched in the light of the local twin stars. They have their own power source and they're socially and economically independent. They trade locally and repair their own stuff just like they grow their own food. 50s and 60s science fiction had plenty of illustration of isolated settlements blending freedom, high tech and local resource management. Top points if they were using fusion power, the solarest of all solar forms of power. Solarpunk is like trannies begging to have their made up identity validated by others.

>>99342 >you'd know I said that the identity of "cyberpunk" was always meant to mean something slightly ridiculous. You said it was a marketing label from critics. It appears you're now backpedaling. >it was in Mirrorshades you mean that someone in a story in Mirrorshades called something "The Movement", or that Mirrorshades was called part of "The Movement"? I actually haven't read that anthology. >DADOES, The Man in the High Castle I've read both of those recently. They definitely influenced several cyberpunk writers, but they are missing many of the core things that make something cyberpunk or not. The Man in the High Castle, for instance, doesn't really feature any high technology at all. >Most things by Vonnegut, Ballard Again, I don't think I would call anything I've read of Vonnegut's Or Ballard's cyberpunk, although he was clearly an inspiration to cyberpunk writers. Not all dystopian science fiction is cyberpunk, and not all utopian science fiction is solarpunk.

>>99340 this kind of terminology is always an invention of the press and marketing and mainstream culture's interpretation of anything that is new or subversive in some way. boring conventional thinking square people always need a name for something, until they come up with a name for it they are totally confused and they look really stupid when they try to talk about it, but when they come up with a name like "punk" or "goth" or grunge" or whatever then they've got it all figured out and they can now talk about it like they are experts who are totally down with that scene and know whats going on.

>>99357 >the lares And because of this I think you kinda have to say that solarpunk is largely about the tone, and the tone is the tranny prog hyperdiverse happyland with solarpanels and giant windturbines being serviced by hijabed, wheelchair bound brown people. Likewise cyberpunk is not really about the setting either. On tatooine and a lot of the outer rim you've got gangsters and trade corporations that hold massive power, weakly managed by a distant and hands off government, all in fantastically technological world. You've got bounty hunters and cybernetics everywhere. Isn't that a perfect cyberpunk setting? And yet star wars is Star Wars and no one thinks its cyberpunk.

lol at the dullards in this thread trying to levy criticisms against an entire literary genre in their extremely uncreative native language of corny old slurs and cliches and stereotypes. it's like hearing a 50 year old white man's hot takes about rap music.

>>99370 >And because of this I think you kinda have to say that solarpunk is largely about the tone, and the tone is the tranny prog hyperdiverse happyland with solarpanels and giant windturbines being serviced by hijabed, wheelchair bound brown people. Remove the terminally ill leftist vomit and what is left? Essentially, an regionally and ecology focused philosophy that is politically and economically libertarian (reduction of state supervision), borderline ecofascist on some other points, with a knack for high tech and a DIY mentality, which is what people have been doing in for centuries everywhere. Only an urbanite soaked with hyper-consumerism would not know that. >Likewise cyberpunk is not really about the setting either. On tatooine and a lot of the outer rim you've got gangsters and trade corporations that hold massive power, weakly managed by a distant and hands off government, all in fantastically technological world. You've got bounty hunters and cybernetics everywhere. Isn't that a perfect cyberpunk setting? No because cyberpunk depicts a modern urban life that encroaches everything, an ill that is global. There is no escape from X, you have to live with or in X, or even become X. The Corporation and its invasive culture is everywhere. It's suffocating, life outside of it is nigh impossible. All tensions revolve around corporate wars. It is the rule of techno-merchants who don't care about your history or culture. They just want to own everything and you're a gnat in that picture. It often depicts a world where urbanism, consumerism and exploitation of all forms of life went too far, so much that humans are themselves made of spare parts. Star Wars is a complex picture but it's more about massive political powers that rise and fall and it's proudly wearing its inspiration on its sleeve: Rome. Anything about WWII warfare was mainly for the aesthetics, especially in the original trilogy.

>>99374 >cyberpunk must be inescapable then IDK if a lot of the main PKD material thats classed as cyberpunk counts either. You've got the offworld colonies in DADOES for instance. Now I'm sure those are interesting places but they're not going to be the urban mass of Losangeles. Also I could imagine if you had Luke without Old Ben, Tatooine would feel like an inescapable planet where everything is gangsters. You can be like the Lars and just live out in the boonies and just scraping by. But if he ever wants to go out and do something cool he's not getting a ship, he's not getting money, and all the people around with money and power who might give him jobs are the gangsters and people who work for them. And the occasional stranded naboonian princess. I guess once you get the ship you can leave, but its not like the gangsters don't have the money to hire bounty hunters that can conduct assasinations as far as the capital, and the government is happy to work with gangsters and bounty hunters when its conductive to its business. Which over the course of the story is actually pretty dang often really. >everything revolves around corporate wars the entire prequel trilogy is corporate wars.

https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia

>>99375 pkd lived and operated within the 1960s-70s american counterculture and that was really what informed his writing more than anything else, particularly in his later work. the futuristic technology featured in his stories was not really the primary focus and it wasn't heavily elaborated upon, it just existed as a plot device to exaggerate and highlight existing everpresent issues like authoritarianism and psychological manipulation and drug addiction and mental illness and the human condition. you can see that same sort of dynamic in other influential science fiction writers who operated in different yet also similar times and places in history - orwell was operating out of post-ww2 authoritarian britain, william gibson was operating out of reagan-era hypercapitalist america, and their work didn't really go into much detail about how the future technology works or portray it as something that actually changed the world, the technology merely amplified existing paradigms. orwell's telescreens and memory holes were just plot devices for highlighting issues like propaganda and surveillance and historical revisionism. william gibson's cyberspace and sim-stim and radical forms of body modification were plot devices for discussing global commerce and white-collar crime and the entertainment industry and a very superficial image-obsessed culture. the point is, sci-fi writers like pkd or orwell or gibson were not really acting as futurists when they wrote, trying to speculate about some new fundamentally-different kind of world in the future; they were really acting as sociologists of the present, using speculative future technology to exaggerate existing dynamics and make a statement about the world as it is today.

>>99357 >solarpunk is... trannies... (bad) Welp the cat is out of the bag now it seems, not that I was particularly surprised. Genres aren't equivalent to your projections about them, there's really nothing more to say about it than that. >>99359 >It appears you're now backpedaling I'm not lol, Bethke who used the phrase cyberpunk tongue-in-cheekly in his story, Cyberpunk, would 10 years later come to rue how critics and marketers used his word to flanderize an entire literary tendency. He talks about this in a later novel, Headcrash. >>99367 You get it. There is an organic movement from one tendency and set of aesthetics with the more interesting works coming in between, I would even go on to argue that, if it were to exist, any genre-defining work was necessarily part of that early period rather than the slop that it was made into. >>99359 >Did someone in a short story in Mirrorshades refer to something as the movement? No, it's in the introduction of the collection, IIRC it laments to some extent the earlier days of the movement when things were more flexible. I highly recommend you read it to understand what I'm getting at. >DADOES, man in the high castle You could make the argument that MITHC is doing something different, even if the ethos is completely in line with the genre. However DADOES is the book that was made into Bladerunner, which I don't think you can argue isn't cyberpunk. Yes bladerunner was a little more kitsch and made into a cyberpunk film, but that's also just because it was made into a film which *needs* a vivid setting an environmental storytelling. If it is to exist at all, I don't think cyberpunk should necessitate film conventions. >Vonnegut and Ballard aren't cyberpunk And again I would argue you can make the case vonnegut isn't really cyberpunk but I don't think you can say that about Ballard: Applied Ballardism has a lot to say about this. More importantly, however, my point was not to argue what is and isn't cyberpunk but rather that "cyberpunk" was carved from the new wave of scifi, a literary movement which responded to the high-concept, utopian science fiction and attitudes of say Asimov - though I've seen it argued that some works of his, like I, Robot should be considered cyberpunk as well. >Not all dystopian scifi is cyberpunk, not all utopian scifi is solarpunk Certainly I agree, and I would go on to say that not all cyberpunk observes the conventions of dystopian scifi either. This doesn't mean that it depicts good settings, but it is like others ITT have stated a reflection of the present and the ways in which it is bad. I simply go on to argue that it, and the movement it came out of, is also a response to the high scifi that came before.. in fact I would say that the golden age of scifi was absolutely about the present as well, but the new wave was more explicit about it. I should admit to something: I obviously prefer cyberpunk over solarpunk, if forced to choose, but it's really not my point. I'm personally more interested in writing "post-solarpunk", works that respond to the frankly patronizing and dismissive tone that solarpunk takes, but not pieces that do only this in their entirety. Because I don't think I could write a particularly compelling story that merely took place in a utopia, or a dystopia for that matter.

>>99375 >then IDK if a lot of the main PKD material thats classed as cyberpunk counts either. You've got the offworld colonies in DADOES for instance. Now I'm sure those are interesting places but they're not going to be the urban mass of Losangeles. You may escape physically, but not economically, nor culturally or politically. They could be part of the same system. In the movie adaptations it's somehow clearer and there's even an implication that they are even more lawless than nations on Earth so companies can do what they want there, essentially because they would have been founded by the companies themselves and would be properties of these companies. So instead of having Blackrock buying a whole section of Bosnia, it buys a whole portion of a moon or builds its own station with its own jurisdiction. >Also I could imagine if you had Luke without Old Ben, Tatooine would feel like an inescapable planet where everything is gangsters. Supposedly yea but it's just a desert gangster land, perhaps more like Firefly. I think that a staple of cyberpunk is that even in remote places, the brands are visible and impossible to miss. Tatooine is Space Farwest and that again is easily explained by the movies Lucas obviously borrowed from, sometimes down to the architecture, the costumes or even sentences or gestures. I also forgot to mention the Flash Gordon comics and the Valérian band desinée, and some other obscure influences. >the entire prequel trilogy is corporate wars. Not even close. There's one side that's gathered around business, and the group fighting them is a republic, not a bunch of lowlife shmucks, and the reason for tensions is about taxes but we see that it was just an excuse that sort of mirrors the premise of the the American Civil War. Many modern conflicts involve companies or groups without being about cyberpunk.

>>99392 >Welp the cat is out of the bag now it seems, not that I was particularly surprised. Genres aren't equivalent to your projections about them, there's really nothing more to say about it than that. Like these drugged up people's lives aren't one big 24/7 projection lol. I don't even have to apply my own interpretation about it because solarpunk makes no secret about its modern leftist social justice aspects: all the books that are presented as its founding literature do champion these ideas. I could understand that this seems secondary if you were for example only paying attention to Reddit since people over there carefully minimize such talks despite never criticizing and rejecting them factually, giving a false appearance of being only focused on the economical and ecological side of things. But nothing could be further away from the truth.

>>99392 >No, it's in the introduction of the collection, IIRC it laments to some extent the earlier days of the movement when things were more flexible. I highly recommend you read it to understand what I'm getting at. A few citations from that anthology would be enough to get things started and clarified.

There is at least one mod who's been wildly pruning content from older threads. It's disgusting. They all had hit the thread limit but now you look into them and they're full of deleted posts and well below said limit. Seriously, check this >>85465 Probably the same cunt who felt like deleting the first solarpunk thread for no reason whatsoever once someone started the second one. Whoever does that, know that you're one huge bag of aborted fecal matter and should consider the rope.

>>99408 It isnt always a mod. I sometimes delete my posts so i can make a new one if a new thread had not been started.

>>99409 They're varied and I also lost some I wrote. It's not just one person. >I sometimes delete my posts so i can make a new one if a new thread had not been started. Please explain.

>>99392 >I'm personally more interested in writing "post-solarpunk", works that respond to the frankly patronizing and dismissive tone that solarpunk takes I am interested to see what that would look like in your view. Since posts like >>99298 and >>99357 do reflect my impressions of solarpunk being this artificially forced Frankenstein that's trying to wear some other genre's face as its own. The threads on this going into real life politics from a side that's becoming increasingly more disliked didn't help either nor made the discussions any more productive. Meanwhile I can not find anything compelling in it, not the social criticisms which are based on made up issues, ignoring real ones, nor the setting and aesthetics which reminds me more of yuppie bungalows but without the infrastructure or industry which it would require. Now I'm not one of those people saying that every story needs conflict, I believe some Ghibli movies were a good example of that, but that's because they had some struggle and focused closely on the protagonists rather than the lore around their environment. Stories about how nice life would be if we were all gay, biracial and sprawled out with a few hi-tech gadgets seem to be as devoid of consistence as the yogurt ad that inspired these. Hell, the criticisms levied at this whole thing for 3 entire threads doesn't even seem to be registered, let alone taken into account which could be its own entire source of conflict in such a world, where say some lofty hippy dippy idealism could clash with material reality. You could write the next Brave New World with that one premise alone! But while I believe this supposed genre is just an astro turf, I too believe I could actually make it work. Not as a post-solarpunk, but a solarpunk from the elements that I could gather and put them in a setting that's much closer to how real people would end up acting. Let's compare notes next time the thread is in it's 5th or 7th iteration.

>>99440 Have you ever read The Dispossessed? It's a very good take on "how would a Utopian anarchist society actually work".

>>99441 Interesting but I'm not sure how that has anything to do with how people would actually act. But it would be interesting to read Starship Troopers from the perspective of the bugs for novelty's sake.