Sociopath Community

Sintetika said: 

However, in any way, what I see happening is things going to shit, and there being a broken fractured humanity that will need unification and help. This is why I firmly believe that those of similar ideological background to me should  seek to learn and prepare in all capacities, to become polymaths and strong revolutionaries and know how to use weapons and fight. 

if you look at the history of the Fire Codes in the US, typically, new fire codes were passed into law after people died. so typical human behavior. lol nobody likes a fucking insurance policy, fuck that, "it will not happen to ME!"

so im thinking you may be correct here, things will go to shit. i hate being a pessimist.

others on the globe have the same feelings and thoughts. im following what the Swedish government is doing. they are telling all of their citizens to prepare for "something".

I really wish Nuclear energy got more attention, I too view it as the most reliable source of energy as we work towards new promising options. Unfortunately it has huge problems with perception and profitability atm. This is causing the rapid decommissioning of many reactors in the U.S. 

Here's a fantastic report I am working through from the Union of Concerned Scientists, 

The Nuclear Power Dilemma: Declining Profits, Plant Closures, and the Threat of Rising Carbon Emissions

In it they outline the issues of profitability, relations, energy needs, and emissions; along with policy & profitability recommendations, and a performance & energy demand analysis. 

AliceInWonderland said:

 Okay. 

How would Marxism solve this though, especially given your variant is very scientific.

How much energy do you think is utilized in scientific experimentation? How much energy is necessary to settle the solar system? How much energy is necessary to feed populations and increase standards of living? Where does that energy come from? 

 Well, I don't know how to give you a definitive calculation of such? I'd say Marxism would solve this through central planning. How much energy is required to settle the solar system, I don't have a clue, I don't see the revolution happening and then instantly deciding to go into space, there will have to be a period of reconstruction and consolidation. The last two questions sound also like "where's does all the money come from" Well, the surplus value that is extracted from labor when an employee works for an employer would be in the hands of the state, also technically "taxes" such would be able to raise the standards of living. How much is required to feed a population, depends on a population census.


To answer energy as like, what alternatives for an energy resource. I'm entirely in support of nuclear energy, and geo-thermal. This of course can be debated among the proletariat, once a socialist state comes into fruition. The point I'm making is, because Capitalism is profit driven, and become Capitalism tends to have a flaw of overproduction, and proceeds to destroy goods and waste resources, that problem wouldn't exist under a planned economy. The destruction of environment is really mostly profit driven today. If you remove that drive, you can essentially eliminate that from happening.

AliceInWonderland said:

How will Marxism make this all worth it and not prove to contribute to the problem?

Well, considering that the majority of the things standing in our way is corporate greed and lobbying, so corporations can make more profit and fuck over the environment, I'd see that problem as eliminated. Under a marxist system, there's no need for a profit motive? There's no real set procedure, that's up to the socialist society in place to decide, if there's no need to expand profit, and you don't suffer from issues such as overproduction and by extension a waste of resources, I don't see how it will contribute to the problem. 

AliceInWonderland said:

This will take hard work and an amount of dedication rarely seen, I hope you're up for it.

 I plan to try my best, it's the future of humanity we're speaking about. 

Sintetika said: 

AliceInWonderland said:

 Okay. 

How would Marxism solve this though, especially given your variant is very scientific.

How much energy do you think is utilized in scientific experimentation? How much energy is necessary to settle the solar system? How much energy is necessary to feed populations and increase standards of living? Where does that energy come from? 

 Well, I don't know how to give you a definitive calculation of such? I'd say Marxism would solve this through central planning.

So you don't know the level complexity that drives scientific and technological progress, but you do know central planning is the solution despite complexity being the primary constraint that determines the success of such central planning.

How much energy is required to settle the solar system, I don't have a clue, I don't see the revolution happening and then instantly deciding to go into space, there will have to be a period of reconstruction and consolidation.

What does that involve? Will it be similar to the great leap forward or Stalins 5-year plan? Will there be just as much death? If there is as much death then is this not exploiting peoples labour?

The last two questions sound also like "where's does all the money come from" Well, the surplus value that is extracted from labor when an employee works for an employer would be in the hands of the state, also technically "taxes" such would be able to raise the standards of living. How much is required to feed a population, depends on a population census.

So you don't know the level complexity that drives scientific and technological progress, but you do know central planning is the solution despite complexity being the primary constraint that determines the success of such central planning. 

The last two questions are not a concerned with money, it's concerned with energy. Energy has to come from some where. 

 

To answer energy as like, what alternatives for an energy resource. I'm entirely in support of nuclear energy, and geo-thermal. This of course can be debated among the proletariat, once a socialist state comes into fruition. The point I'm making is, because Capitalism is profit driven, and become Capitalism tends to have a flaw of overproduction, and proceeds to destroy goods and waste resources, that problem wouldn't exist under a planned economy. The destruction of environment is really mostly profit driven today. If you remove that drive, you can essentially eliminate that from happening.

Are their benefits to overproduction of energy? A surplus of energy allows things like the LHC, Ligo, and every other R&D endeavor exist. 

 

AliceInWonderland said:

How will Marxism make this all worth it and not prove to contribute to the problem?

Well, considering that the majority of the things standing in our way is corporate greed and lobbying, so corporations can make more profit and fuck over the environment, I'd see that problem as eliminated. Under a marxist system, there's no need for a profit motive? There's no real set procedure, that's up to the socialist society in place to decide, if there's no need to expand profit, and you don't suffer from issues such as overproduction and by extension a waste of resources, I don't see how it will contribute to the problem. 

Was it eliminated under past Marxist regimes? How environmentally sound were USSR's and China's policies? 

Does riding the system of profit motive really solve human strive and suffering? Was there suffering under past marxist regimes? Did the USSR ever exploit her citizens? 

China utilizes heavy central planning. How is china's environmental policies? Does it overproduce? Does it underproduce? Does it waste resources do to poor central planning - a failure to build a predictive model?

AliceInWonderland said:

This will take hard work and an amount of dedication rarely seen, I hope you're up for it.

 I plan to try my best, it's the future of humanity we're speaking about. 

There is no time for planning, it's the future of humanity we're speaking about. 

The first three minutes is a solid summary of the relationship between energy production, demand, and storage. The rest of the video pertains to the engineering of pump storage. 

i started looking into the historical ice sheet data. a lot of the nay sayers on climate change are pointing out that in the historical data the CO2 lags the temperature change in time. the temperature changes first and then the CO2 changes. this is a significant argument against human caused climate change. obviously something else in the complex climate model was causing the temperature to change.

so i searched around looking for someone that found some similar data as this human influenced time period. a time period where CO2 leads temperature rise. guess what, there is none that i or others could find. why? we are in uncharted territory. CO2 is rising at 2 PPM per year. in the historical data it has risen at 0.0001 PPM per year. WTF! this alone is alarming.

"The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels — a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about 0.0001 parts per million per year. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year."

20,000 times faster

on a slightly different note

Hansen's position is that, "The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to two degrees [Celsius] is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."

Two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming would make Earth much warmer than during the Eemian, and would move Earth closer to "Pliocene"-like conditions, when sea level was in the range of 25 meters (82 feet) higher than today."

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/649/secrets-from-the-past-point-to-rapid-climate-change-in-the-future/

the more i look into this the more fucked up and depressing it looks.

this is my welcoming stop stealing my spotlight

Greta has definitely calmed down. this is good to see. people will take her much more seriously. in the video she made a statement that the US was the largest oil exporter in the world, which i did not know. so i looked it up.

here are the top 15 oil producers according to wikipedia (it must be correct its wikipedia)

Rank -- Country barrels/day -- barrels/day per 1 million people

01-- USA[6]-- 15,043,000-- 35,922
02-- Saudi Arabia (OPEC)-- 12,000,000-- 324,866
03-- Russia-- 10,800,000-- 73,292
04-- Iraq (OPEC)-- 4,451,516-- 119,664
05-- Iran (OPEC)-- 3,990,956-- 49,714
06-- China-- 3,980,650-- 2,836
07-- Canada-- 3,662,694-- 100,931
08-- United Arab Emirates (OPEC)-- 3,106,077-- 335,103
09-- Kuwait (OPEC)-- 2,923,825-- 721,575
10-- Brazil-- 2,515,459-- 12,113
11-- Venezuela-- (OPEC) 2,276,967-- 69,914
12-- Mexico-- 2,186,877-- 17,142
13-- Nigeria-- (OPEC) 1,999,885-- 10,752
14-- Angola-- (OPEC) 1,769,615-- 61,417
15-- Norway-- 1,647,975-- 313,661

a couple things came to mind when i looked at the above data, 1) Canada and Norway being number 7 and 15 and 2) the per capita number is interesting. If you sort by per capita numbers, Norway is then 4th and Canada is 7th in the world. hmmm both countries known for there liberal nature but participating in full out capitalistic war on the environment. i mean you kinda expect this behaviour from Trump and the US but Canada and Norway? WTF lol i had no idea.

last time i looked 33% of the CO2 being emitted was from driving cars. I don't see anyone stopping their driving. Do you? BTW electric cars get their power from coal/gas electrical plants. does not count

another 33% was coming from power plants making electricity. i dont see people shutting down coal and gas plants. do you?

and the last 33% was everything else, industry, other emitters, people, animals w/e

Greta says we have 8 years left in our carbon budget. I don't think we are going to make it. so, what is going to happen?

EU

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/how_en

Global warming will have serious consequences for human health, biodiversity, ecosystems and the goods and services they provide, as well as for many social and economic sectors, including agriculture, tourism, and energy production.

U.S. Regional Effects

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third3 and Fourth4 National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

food and water supplies are going to be affected,

this means serious trouble in the next 20 to 30 years.

my thoughts are that things are going to change quickly, the ice core data has shown that CO2 has never risen this fast, ever. this is our human experiment on the earth. oceans and land will change so quickly that plants and animals will have a hard time adapting.

start prepping now