idiopolitical musings

[michael norton]

Shibboleth, I have just got in from visiting a neighbour, his daughter works for EA Games. He told me that they are in a process of a leveraged buyout.
Being headed by Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts
$55 billion.
This is a firm that makes computer games for teenagers, although they moving in to AI.
They make nothing useful, yet a consortium of very rich people think it is worth investing and borrowing a monstrous sum of money.
To me all nonsense.
This is the modern world, whereby very rich people trick poor people, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, all to no benefit for society.

[ET]

“I do not think the World will end because there is increasing Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
“I do not think the world will end because it will get to warm ( as in global warming)”
“however, we could be slaughtered by global conflict…”

Let me say this Michael, I do not think the world will end if there is a nuclear conflict.
If such a conflict happens it will however have profound consequences on the lives of everyone on the planet. But the planet will continue to spin on its axis, will continue to orbit the sun etc etc

As I and others have tried to point out to you multiple times, NO ONE ever has said climate change/global warming will be the end of the planet, no one ever. It will have profound consequences just like a nuclear conflagration would have. Areas that were great for growing stuff will become desert, areas that are desert may become fertile. Coastal areas will become more and more flooded, warmer areas will become cold, colder areas will melt and so on and so on. But the planet will continue to spin on its axis, will continue to orbit the sun etc etc
You try to ridicule the concept of profound change as “world ending.” Stop. The displacement of billions of people from climate change, if we don’t get a grip of our energy supply, will be just as severe as the displacement of billions of people following a nuclear conflagration, it will just begin more slowly.

We have a clean, continuous ( at least for the next 4 billion years or so) energy supply. It’s clean and doesn’t pollute. We just need to harness it. It would give all countries a degree of energy independence. Energy geopolitics would more or less be gone.
The war on Iran, which I think you disagree with, is about control of energy. Ditto Venezuela. USA has stated in policy that its goal is to achieve energy dominance by controlling all the fossil fuel supplies. Do you think we would be wise to allow that to happen?

I don’t believe you are a stupid man Michael. I believe you have you have the capacity to figure all this out for yourself. For some reason you just won’t even try. Why? Why are you so against a different form of energy that can do the same work?
Why are we currently shifting all our available treasure to “bolstering our defense” when we should be spending out treasure on expanding our grid, developing energy storage technology and investing in energy independence. If USA can’t control fossil fuel energy distribution, well maybe some of those pesky uppity countries might get ideas.

[Author]

Posts