- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Demeter – if you are sticking around, how about actually engaging in the discussions and items you brought up, instead of condescending to us with the patronising drivel that is all you have managed to date?
Go on, try it. You might learn something.
@Clark writes that the article I linked to above, criticising Citizens Assemblies, is biased since the organisation that published it, Global Warming Policy (GWP) has an
“underlying objective […] to argue that there is no mandate from the population for net zero emissions targets, and that such targets are driven purely by governments and lobby groups.”
Let’s examine this.
What does the phrase: “net zero emissions targets” actually mean?
It means humans must stop using fossil fuels (carbon capture is a net energy sink). However, thermodynamics dictates fossil fuel energy density has enabled 8 billion people to be alive today. So, at what ever rate fossil fuels are removed from civilizations, by natural depletion (peak oil already happened in 2018) or political “zero emissions” policy, global population will decline at that same rate, back to what it was before fossil fuel age, circa 200 years ago, i.e. under 2 billion global population, by end of this century at the latest, since so-called renewables (and indeed all other possible replacement energy sources) are net energy sinks, and even if you massage the numbers they still can’t be built or maintained (thermodynamics) without fossil fuels?
What does the phrase: “mandate from the population” mean, given the above described physics and fossil fuel depletion will cull over three quarters of global population no matter what flavour of “mandate” the GWP say the people do, or do not have about “zero emissions”, which will only accelerate in aggregate the people’s own decline?
And why do those who do promote “zero emission” as a policy option FAIL to mention axiomatically they are calling for global population to shrink even faster than depletion on its own, had we not implemented a “zero emission” policy?
Like the GWP, I suggest that “net zero emission targets” are deeply – and yes fatally – misguided, or some form of dishonest propaganda grooming by vested interests profiteering by hiding the real depletion issues, whilst inevitably modern civilizations collapses.
This leaves the question of how do ‘we’ best ‘manage’ our dwindling reserves of fossil fuels? Share it round equally and fairly to slow and cushion the descent as best as possible? Or mess about letting billionaire financiers and banksters maximise short and medium term profits from trying to sell us anti-scientific “net zero emission targets” technological mirages?
Natasha: I’m not sure why you’re insisting that fossil fuel is required for renewables? Steel can be made without burning fuels, all construction and maintenance requires is energy. Obviously we cannot get there immediately.
Also, I don’t think anyone is seriously proposing a mass cull of the population (dire warnings from conspiracy nuts notwithstanding). But the population certainly does need to decline considerably in order to be sustainable. A one or zero child policy, encouraged strongly through the tax system, would go a long way to achieving this.
Failure to take the initiative to reduce our reproduction rate ourselves will mean nature will do so, in a manner most definitely not of our choosing.
Natasha, with respect, I think I have looked more deeply into humanity’s crisis than you have (and I doubt I know the half of it). Fossil fuel depletion is merely one aspect of a set of interlocking problems, most of which affect several of the others.
Some people get fixated on carbon dioxide, some on economic collapse, some on fuel depletion, some on habitat loss, some on population growth, some on animal farming, some on ocean acidification, some on war and nuclear weapons, some on rising extinction rates, etc. etc. etc. But actually, physical reality is a unified (though diverse) system – everything affects everything else.
It’s a bit like one of those games (eg. Kerplunk!) where players in turn have to successively remove a part from a structure that is supporting something above, making as little of it fall as possible. It’s hard to guess which stick will provoke the biggest collapse.
There are also various facts you need to get straight; please try reading more widely. Wikipedia is often dismissed as a “tool of the establishment” or something, but it does actually get edited by large numbers of very diverse people, many of them promoting contradicting points of view. In consequence it contains very diverse citations.
– – – – – – – –In answer to your final question, from which I shall truncate the distracting pejorative you concluded with:
– “This leaves the question of how do ‘we’ best ‘manage’ our dwindling reserves of fossil fuels? Share it round equally and fairly to slow and cushion the descent as best as possible? Or mess about letting billionaire financiers and banksters maximise short and medium term profits…”
I’m for the first option. However, massive wealth confers massive power, and power never cedes itself voluntarily. We, the people, need to get organised, and that’s why I’m with Extinction Rebellion – we teach, and practice, how to self organise, and how to resist.
And Natasha, I prefer your apparent narrow-focus panic over Lapsed Agnostic’s apparent broad-focus complacency. I agree more with you: disaster is coming, whether some human pushes the nuclear war button or not.
@glenn_nl, Thanks for asking me: “[…] why you’re insisting that fossil fuel is required for renewables?”
A: Wind turbines take c450 tons of steel and c900 cubic meters of concrete per MW. Solar takes c300 tons of steel and c100 cubic meters of concrete per MW. per MW. Combined cycle gas plants take orders of magnitude less under c50 tons of steel, and under c50 cubic meters of concrete per MW.
https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Have you ever seen a metal ore mine that can be built on heavy machines that run on batteries? Or a sand and gravel pit running on biofuel? Or a non diesel transport fleet to supply smelters? Or deliver steel to building sites? Or infrastructure building sites with battery vehicles and cranes? Or road building machines with a battery charger nearby for the battery fleet of tarmacadam laying vehicles? Or a farm that grows biofuel crops that runs on battery tractors? Or a cement or nitrogen fertilizer making process that doesn’t need fossil fuels?
Etc., etc… Hopefully you get the picture.
Steel (and some other industrial processes cement nitrogen fertilizers) can be made at a laboratory / demonstration i.e. microscopic scales, without burning fuels directly, but such processes do NOT scale. Further such demonstrations are ENTIRELY dependant on surrounding infrastructure – all built with fossil fuels – to even exist at all! Earlier in this thread a steel making process was cited, which I showed how and why it can’t scale (with references) here:
#post-87950 – Natasha: August 31, 2022 at 19:55
If such process could scale, then why aren’t the billionaire bankster investor class pumping their spread sheet numbers (that’s all money is) to build industrial scale machines, processes and supply chains that DON”T use fossil fuels? It doesn’t matter how BIG your spread sheet numbers are if the real world can’t supply the real materials, processes, land, and food and water to feed the human labour needed.
In other words: please stop ignoring EXTERNALITIES.
In yet more other words: because the laws of thermodynamics dictate…
@glenn_nl, continues to side step these externalities, first by acknowledging that “the population certainly does need to decline considerably in order to be sustainable” but then suggests “A one or zero child policy, encouraged strongly through the tax system, would go a long way to achieving” such sustainable global numbers of humans. Eh?
The thermodynamic facts of fossil fuel depletion ON ITS OWN dictates there will be less than a quarter of the current 8 billion by end of century no matter what we do politically! Such birth rate tinkering is at best irrelevant, especially given the poorest globally, say half the population, are almost entirely outside of any tax systems, have no access to contraception, or means to support themselves and their communities here, today, now, without having as more than 1 child to look after themselves whilst they get old and die off.
I’m not “proposing a mass cull of the population” with whatever political policy flavour of the day. I’m simply stating thermodynamics or nature as you put it, will negate any and ALL political posturing that conflicts with its dictates, which is for certain that 8 billion humans face “a mass cull of the population” to under 2 billion by end of this century at the latest.
Natasha, your point about industry’s needs for fossil fuels is very strong; this is a MAJOR problem.
However, your point about population contains inaccuracies, and overlooks a major issue. It is true that globally the majority live in less developed economies, but these economies are also less industrialised, and where they are industrialised it is primarily for exports, to gain first-world currency and to pay back interest to first-world banks. So their dependence on fossil fuels is much lower, and would be lower still without those ‘debts’.
Clark, Fossil fuel depletion is the architecture inside of which ALL the other “set[s] of interlocking problems, most of which affect several of the others” reside, whilst playing out their various scenarios. Literally EVERYTHING we do and consume and own in the modern world would vanish without fossil fuels.
To demote Fossil fuel depletion as “merely one aspect” amongst all the others is, IMHO* a MASSIVE mistake. Practically none of the other “set[s] of interlocking problems” would exist without fossil fuels.
(Also, this is not the place to advertise our CV’s by writing: “I think I have looked more deeply into humanity’s crisis than you have” (i.e. you wish to invoke the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy), so I decline your offer to parade mine here, beyond its relevance to this specific forum topic.
* In My Humble OpinionNatasha, to link to a comment internal to this site, you have to copy your chosen link, type a title for it in your post, highlight the title, click the ‘LINK’ button above the comment field, and paste the link into the dialogue. The way the forum software handles links is a pain.
Natasha, I have no wish to parade. I’m asking you to investigate more widely to expedite the conversation (after all, time is limited!), and so that I don’t have to keep contradicting you.
For instance, fossil fuel depletion would ultimately limit emissions, obviously, but if you check the figures you will find that climate change would become utterly catastrophic before then. Also, most of those emission would have dissolved into the oceans, acidifying them to the point that the ocean food chain would have collapsed, impacting oxygen production.
It is also true that conventional oil production has peaked. But as you might guess from thermodynamics, there is far more low-grade fossil fuel (tar sands, shale oil etc.) than the high-grade stuff that humanity has already more than half burned. It is already economically viable to extract and refine this sludge.
As the quality and EROEI of extracted fuels fall, their emissions per unit energy increase.
See? They’re all interlocked. And they almost always make each other worse.
Clarke, You are correct re: poorer less industrialised economies using less fossil fuels indigenously and that their exports earn currency to pay interest increases their fossil fuel consumption. But this is still just some wiggles inside one corner of the grand architecture of the primacy of whole-planet fossil fuel depletion.
And thanks re: how to get links to work 🙂
As a rule, the lower the quality of something the more of it there is. This is again an implication of thermodynamics.
– “…the lower the quality of something the more of it there is.”
This goes for ideas and discussion too 🙁
Well probably I do have a wish to parade; we are all stuck with having an ego. But fuck, I wish I was wrong more often!
Musical interlude:
All That Matters Is The Moments by The Comet is Coming, the ‘comet’ being metaphorical for global disaster, of course.
The comet is coming, Babylon burned down,
Our time has gone, our clock has run down.
The Arctic has cracked, the mountain is popped,
The river is ripped, the air is churning,
Skyscrapers falling like volume turned down.
I see all, from the cliff side, by the ring side,
From the front seat view of the rip tide.
I, this man, me, this matchstick,
Understand the futility of our antics,
How pointless, the decimals, the zeros of my fabric,
My trainers, my fabric, my designer casket.Natasha, I am more hopeful than you, but in some ways the hope is the worst thing of all, because it provokes frustration.
Being past global peak births brings me hope. The poorer people of the world bring me hope because they get by with so much less fossil fuel, and thus with much lower emissions. I don’t know what Earth’s carrying capacity could be, if everyone were to economise, share, reuse, localise etc. I see that there are massive savings that could be made, but I also know Earth’s carrying capacity falls as extractivism, industry and industrialised agriculture degrade the biosphere.
If only the media would Tell the Truth.
If only people would Act Now.
If only people would recognise the emergency and change!Clark, If it is “already economically viable to extract and refine this sludge” i.e. tight oil & tar sands oil, then please post links to references that support this hypothesis?
According to many researchers and writers (e.g. Gail Tverberg and e.g. her writings exchanges with prof. Charles Hall the originator of ‘Energy Returned On (energy) Investments'(EROI) modelling) the “sludge” will largely remain in the ground as it is far too inefficient to extract.
Our Finite World (blog): Energy Return on Energy Invested – Prof. Charles Hall’s Comments – by Gail Tverberg (12 Apr 2018)
——— Why No Politician Is Willing to Tell Us the Real Energy Story – by Gail Tverberg (23 Aug 2022)
Alice Friedemann has written extensively about the problems associated with the very low EROEI of tight oil & tar sands oil, with lots of references.
Why Canadian oilsands will not help solve the energy crisis – by energyskeptic (16 July 2022)
from Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge (blog) – oilsands indexOil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces. The average “energy returned on investment,” or EROI, for conventional oil was roughly 25:1 (in 2013 significantly lower now in 2022). In other words, 25 units of oil-based energy are obtained for every one unit of other energy that is invested to extract it. But tar sands oil is in a category all its own. Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1 (in 2013, and again certainly not higher now in 2022). Prof. Charles Hall thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands’ full life cycle—including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs—was taken into account (i.e. the externalities I keep writing here about).
In 2013 (significantly lower now in 2022) most unconventional energy sources have much lower efficiencies than conventional gas and oil, which operate at a combined energy-returned-on-investment ratio of about 18:1. Shale gas, for example, performs at about 6.5:1 to 7.6:1—a bit better than the 2.9:1 to 5.1 for tar sands oil. Corn ethanol, with an EROI of about 1.3:1, sits at the bottom of the barrel for investment pay off.
Oil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces – by Rachel Nuwer (Inside Climate News, 19 Feb 2013)
Of all the major fossil fuel types being commercially extracted today, Tar Sands have the lowest EROEI. They are essentially bitumen that once it is carved out of the earth still needs to be heated, softened, washed of stone and sand and then pumped as still nasty, gritty sludge through high pressure pipes to get to a refinery that can cook and separate it enough to begin to use. EVERY bit of the fuel used in getting Tar Sands extracted and softened and pumped first required burning additional FOSSIL fuel pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere … before the net refined fuel from the Tar Sands is itself burned in a car or other device – which adds the rest of the carbon into the air as CO2. It is a dirty, process that multiplies the amount of CO2 released – just to access the energy at the last step. That is why Tar Sands are the dirtiest, most CO2 polluting, aquifer and land threatening fossil fuels on the planet.
TAR SANDS – the worst of possible fuels – Rudy Sovinees (One World, Our World blog, 3 Dec 2014 – updated 16 Apr 2018)
Plus tight oil & Tar sands are the dirtiest most land intensive and long term polluting of all fossil fuel extraction methods.
Duck Duck Go: Oil Sands (images)
—
[ Mod: Natasha, your thoroughness in providing links is welcome, but kindly avoid posting so many bare URLs – the links in this post took quite a while to tidy up. In future, please hyperlink the title using the method outlined (and rehearsed) above, providing detail of the source, author and date on the same line.Thank you. ]
On the Cobbles, the last song ever recorded by John Martyn in 2003 – Goodnight Irene! Enjoy 🙂
John Martyn – Goodnight Irene (Official Visualizer) – jazz track (5 Aug 2021) – YouTube, 4m 12s
Natasha, 12:46, #88506
– “I decline your offer to parade mine here…”
On the contrary, a summary of your experience would be helpful. Myself and other commenters would then know your specific expertise, and what sort of specialist subjects it would be productive to ask you about.
I’m a technology generalist. I was unusually good at classical physics at school. I dislike having to treat everyday technology as magic, so I have learned the principles of everything from bicycles, steam engines, and cathode ray tube televisions to optical discs, computers and software. I program from machine level upwards, I particularly enjoy writing efficient simulations of simple physical systems. I repair anything that’s still large enough to handle; repairs are what I do most. I’ve done a lot of theatre and live music tech, improvising solutions in festival fields, often building equipment myself from junk.
– “…please post links to references that support this hypothesis?”
I should have written “becoming marginally economically viable”. It’s getting done a bit, as is fracking. Of course, the whole system grinds to a halt without fossil fuels, so as conventional fuels deplete, so more and more money will be diverted towards extracting poorer and poorer grades.
Depletion is less like hitting a wall than trying to traverse a swamp by entering it as fast as possible; let’s see how far we can get?
Take a look at “tight oil”, the graphic 80% of the way down this page:
https://richardheinberg.com/museletter-346-the-end-of-growth-ten-years-after
Judging from the scale, that’s over 3000 square miles.
A documentary film: Smoke, Oil and Mirrors.
Some authors: Richard Heinberg (english), Pablo Servigne (french and some translations), Antonio Turiel (spanish only?).
One key word: degrowth.
“On the contrary, a summary of your experience would be helpful.”
In fairness to Natasha, she did say about herself August 22, 2022 at 14:32:
“PS please excuse my inclusion of this ‘authority’ logical fallacy but as a retired industrial electro magnetics designer / physics / maths / 3D design practitioner project manager and teacher, I have some experience in ‘whole-system’ analysis.”
For myself, I’m going to reread the whole thread because there is a lot of information I need to digest and think over.
Natasha, thanks for Goodnight Irene. Hammond organ; wonderful electromagnetic instrument.
Oscar, I’m downloading Smoke, Oil and Mirrors for later. The chances of the 9/11 attacks and the “War on Terror” not being to a large extent about oil strike me as very low. The turn of the millennium had just passed, there was at last a sense that humanity should be looking to the future and considering our place in reality and our impact upon the environment, and suddenly the old order of conflict and ‘security’ reasserted itself in an almost unbelievably dramatic way.
ET, thanks for pointing out Natasha’s earlier comment which I had missed.
THANKS again Craig Murray for hosting this valuable forum space, your Moderators for kindly mopping up my poor link habits, and to all participating 🙂
Clark, I too would describe myself as a technology generalist and am a BIG music lover too – we have much in common! Yes the Hammond Organ is such an amazingly expressive sounding instrument – check out the second track in this mix I did earlier In The Morning – Nora Jones
Natasha,
‘Prisss’ – as in Bladerunner maybe?
I’m a bit too busy to keep up with discussion at present, but I can listen to some music while I get on with other things. I’m enjoying the first track, so thanks.
Oscar,
last night I watched the first part of the documentary you linked. I agree with the vast majority of it, but it contains a couple of glaring bloopers. We should probably discuss those on my old “What is conspiracy theory?” thread, as they’d be off-topic here.
I am afraid you are deluded about Renewable Energy.
Fossil fuels are needed to make aluminum and steel and cement which uses limestone that is calcified.
Solar Panel Production. Coking Coal (Metallurgical Coal) is combined with Sand to produce Silicon that makes the wafer for the photo voltaic cell.
All the materials are mined and processed to make the RE products.Sunface Jack, sorry; who is “deluded about Renewable Energy”, and in what way? There have been a variety of opinions on this thread. Maybe you should cite and quote, or just state what you think the limits are.
Natasha, sorry not to have posted here for a bit; I still have a few of your links to look over.
Fossil fuel availability has just declined due to someone blowing up pipelines. It was already looking unlikely that the UK could keep the lights on this winter (link); must be even worse now.
– COLUMN: Every week, the people who trade electricity in the UK get to quiz the managers of the national grid. Listening to them is getting scarier by the week — and suggests keeping the lights on will be more challenging than politicians admit.
-— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) August 26, 2022
Bloomberg: Listening to European Electricity Traders Is Very, Very Scary
I wish I had some solar panels; even just enough to charge a ‘phone is far better than none.
– – – – – – – – – – –Sunface Jack, have you heard of perovskite solar cells? Much cheaper, fast and easy to produce, considerably more efficient but around a quarter as durable and not yet produced at large scales.
I would like to introduce in this thread the concept of collapsology. Here you have one of its greatest exponents in Europe, specifically in France, speaking about a future without oil.
We also have an article from a minister from my country, he is a dangerous communist, be careful: The limitsi to growth: eco-socialism or barbarism. This article makes it clear that there is a risk of ecofascism.
Once we have accepted the possibility of a societal collapse, it is worth asking whether the Transnational Capitalist Class is aware of the problem or not. Clearly some groups are not, and have techno-optimistic and “transhumanist” wet dreams. Instead, it seems unlikely that the largest think tanks and public and private intelligence services, with their regular work on global risks, are unaware of the problem.
This is where it seems pertinent to recommend an article and a book fresh from the oven: Survival of the Richest by Douglas Rushkoff.
Also, recently one of the leading experts in Spain on degrowth —along with Antonio Turiel— has published a book on the subject and possible scenarios in the short and medium term. Unfortunately it is only available in Spanish.
I currently maintain —and many academics too— that there is a war between elites in the face of the imminent scenario of collapse —in reality it is several collapses and a chain reaction. On one side are the national-populist elites. On the other, the “globalists”. And both have declared war on each other and at the same time, they have silently declared war on us, the people.
The disproportionate legal and political measures in relation to existing dangers suppose a proactive anticipation to dismantle any popular revolt. This has been happening since 2001, from which time we have been experiencing a quasi-permanent juridical-legal exceptional state. That fact deposits most of the power in the Executive(s). An author: Giorgio Agamben.
I suspect that the covidian event was buying time. And the current state of war
as a result of NATO actions, together with Spain’s change of position in relation to the Sahara (goodbye gas from Algeria), and the blowing up of the Baltic gas pipelines, all this is a controlled demolition of what that was already destined to fall.Purpose? Authoritarian, controlled and forced degrowth.
At the same time, there is a scapegoat, as Richard Heinberg already said in the documentary Oil, Smoke and Mirrors more than 10 years ago.
What will we do?
“there is a war between elites in the face of the imminent scenario of collapse —in reality it is several collapses and a chain reaction. On one side are the national-populist elites. On the other, the “globalists”. And both have declared war on each other and at the same time, they have silently declared war on us, the people.
[ … ]
I suspect that the covidian event was buying time. And the current state of war as a result of NATO actions, together with Spain’s change of position in relation to the Sahara (goodbye gas from Algeria), and the blowing up of the Baltic gas pipelines, all this is a controlled demolition of what that was already destined to fall.
{ … ]
Purpose? Authoritarian, controlled and forced degrowth.”Thanks for your thoughts, Oscar. So “the elites have silently declared war on us, the people”, and a worldwide pandemic and a war were engineered to buy time for the masterplan, all to further the authoritarian objective of controlled degrowth? In light of the above, can you explain how, in your view, you manage to evade the label “conspiracy theorist”?
I have not said that they created the pandemic. But it is evident that it has been instrumentalized, as the fight against terrorism has also been instrumentalized for a couple of decades.
If you keep putting things in my mouth that I haven’t said, I better shut up guys; I already went through that and it denotes little understanding on your part or bad faith.
On the other hand, if you see in basic facts about how the world works (global power elite, already solidly referenced in another thread) as a conspiracy theory, you are closer to those theorists than I am, since you see in facts well established by sociology a “conspiracy”, and therefore sociologists and social psychologists become conspiracy theorists.
What an oversimplification you have marked yourself, friend. I will not enter the rag like other times.
The entire sociology is a conspiracy theory. And the social psychology of power, too. Of course. And then the “denialists” are others, when you are the standard-bearers of reason who deny well-established facts in the social sciences for centuries in the case of the elites, 70 years in the case of the power elite on a national scale and two or three decades in the case of the Transnational Capitalist Class.
You are the ones who see conspiracies in that.
And you are the ones who deny reality.
I don’t care what label you put on me… the label gives an account of who puts it, not who is labeled.
Ok, that reaction seems a bit more extreme than I was expecting. You will note I didn’t say anything about denialism there, and I don’t know why I’m being lumped into a group (“You are the ones who deny reality”) in such an extreme proposition. Could you be “putting words in my mouth that I haven’t said”? (Touché, my friend!) There’s no need to fling around such wild accusations. If we’re going to discuss, why not do so calmly, without over-reacting. You are not my enemy, and I’m not trying to chase you away. I have many questions about your thinking, and I want you to explain more, not less.
I didn’t see any hostility in my last message – in fact, I thought I phrased it rather politely – but maybe it was the paraphrasing that you found insulting rather than the implications. So let’s take it more slowly. I quoted you at length for people to make up their own minds on the basis of your actual words and compare my reading of that quote with their own. But we can leave out my (mis-)reading of it, if it complicates things.
“On one side are the national-populist elites. On the other, the “globalists”. And both have declared war on each other and at the same time, they have silently declared war on us, the people.”
That excerpt seems sufficient to qualify as a conspiracy theory, at least according to the common understanding of the term. The “silently declared war on us, the people” is a bit of a giveaway. And the longer elaboration of your ideas gives substance to that statement. Let’s remain fully aware “conspiracy theorist” is a pejorative label, and labels are often misused. But I wondered how you would square it with what you said in another thread:
“Certainly the unproven and often simplistic hypotheses of reality defended by “conspiracy theorists” are a burden for individuals who try to do our best by seriously and rigorously investigating the entrails of the beast for the sake of that knowledge can be be used by activists in a transversal way. By the way, the “conspiracy theorists” are extremely useful for the System, because in addition to moving a lot of money, they hinder our investigative work and keep us entertained by attacking and defending each other…”
There is at least a shadow of a possible contradiction there, and I’m interested in finding out how you would resolve it. I’m not saying you can’t, or that you’re being hypocritical. I’m saying I’d like to know, in order to follow your logic better. It looks to me (you may disagee, and can correct me – calmly, I hope) that the distinction rests on the “unproven” element, and the nature of exactly what has been proven. A lot seems to turn on that. You are certain that the existence of these groups of elites has been proven in sociology – and, importantly, that they engage in deceptive behaviour to manipulate the public to destructive ends – and you’ve kindly offered references for people to learn more about it. Thank you. I’d like to follow those up when time allows, along with reading other material on the same topic.
The main misgiving I have at the moment is that I believe it’s quite rare for there to be such certainty in academia – especially in the social sciences and sociology, which are heavily reliant on competing theoretical constructs and differing methodologies. If someone else managed to find other academic references which say there is no such consensus in sociology, or even that it isn’t the dominant view, or that there is counterevidence, that could give us some reason to reflect and proceed more carefully. I’m not prejudging this or dismissing your view here; I’m merely suggesting that readers (such as me) should consult more widely to satisfy themselves before following the rest of your logic to its conclusions. I recall you offered advice in a similar vein: the spirit of open minds and enquiry. I hope that isn’t perceived as a hostile engagement. It’s meant to be in the spirit of joint enquiry and pedagogy.
I think the assumption of there being “two sides” among the richest and most powerful (the “elites”) is an oversimplification. Most who get to be rich and powerful do so through intense competition; there are also elements of luck and nepotism, but I would expect competitiveness to be the critical attribute because it is proactive and consistent, whereas nepotism relies on a one-off accident of birth, and luck, by its nature, is inconsistent.
Among the highly competitive, membership of any side will be a marriage of convenience, subject to divorce and/or play-acting, in response to circumstances.
Elite awareness of of humanity’s and the biosphere’s predicament is a different matter. I suspect that many of the elite are so preoccupied with acquisition of wealth and power that they are indifferent to such concerns, or consider them irrelevant. They can’t imagine that money would become worthless should physical resources run short, since they have never experienced a lack of resources. Money has always secured resources for them, so they assume it always will.
Never underestimate the delusion of humans; the majority of humans throughout history have held the most preposterous, counter-factual beliefs, such as that embalming a corpse might bring about its immortality, or that their hero rose from the dead after being executed. Being powerful is no guarantee of being rational; quite the opposite.
– “the majority of humans throughout history have held the most preposterous, counter-factual beliefs”
Just look at the current fetish for “the market” and the supposedly supreme importance of money. Money is purely a human construct; it could disappear entirely in an instant yet there would be just as much physical wealth as before. Yet “recessions” somehow make physical resources unavailable. This is clearly some mass delusion; money affects behaviour, and behaviour makes physical resources unavailable. Yet people won’t behave in the necessary manners unless influenced to do so by money.
If I have overreacted, I apologize. The reason is that I am a human being, I have feelings as well as reason, and in other threads I have been personally attacked with users saying a lot of nonsense (you can see it in the blocked thread).
Veteran users of these forums, as well as moderators, seem especially obsessed with conspiracy theories. Their paranoid style looking for conspiracy theories in any contribution to the forum has a lot in common with conspiracy theorists. Extremes meet.
If you want to follow my reasoning and logic, and solve my apparent contradictions, I think that in several threads and posts the necessary arguments and sources are provided to do so. Since you have shown that you have read me, I will not return to the same things.
And if for whatever reason you consider that my contributions are not useful or following the general tone of the forum, you feel more comfortable labeling me as a conspiracy theorist, that’s fine.
I think the real topic of the forum ends up being just a compulsive search for conspiracy theories anywhere.
I think we can all spend that time on more useful things. I have also said it in another thread.
I also said that the motto of this forum seems to be “seek but do not find”.
I have neither time nor energy to debate in forums questions that have to be discussed academically and, effectively, scientifically or journalistically solvent. And I’m going to it.
Thank you for giving me a voice in this forum and I’m sorry I didn’t explain myself well (language is a problem, and the very nature of an Internet forum makes certain debates very difficult).
And please, a very serious suggestion… you can take it or leave it. Work on the obsessive search for conspiracy theories or make it clear to new users that the common denominator of all threads is to find conspiracy theories and refute them, and if there are none, words will be distorted, invented and then “debunked”.
And above all, “seek but do not find”. “Let’s keep going around in circles or let others get into the rag”.
You will have one less conspiracy theorist in the forum. Congratulations guys.
I have a book to write. You keep looking or making conspiracy theorists at your convenience.
And if I’m wrong in my perception of these forums, I apologize again. I’m sorry I didn’t make myself understood. Ignore me in that case and move on! There is so much to do outside of these forums! Good luck to all. 🙂
Thanks again for your contributions. I’ve learned quite a bit about some issues here, and also about the human condition —including myself.
Best regards,
César (aka Oscar)
Natasha, here’s what I wrote to my MP, back in January of this year I think:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –Dear Kemi Badenoch,
please forward this to appropriate ministers. Please note that all evidence I link to originates from expert sources. These are merely examples; I could have cited many more.
You’re presumably aware of the uprising in Kazakhstan, provoked partly by a doubling of the price of liquefied gas, which is used by many in Kazakhstan as vehicle fuel. Yet Kazakhstan is a major producer of hydrocarbons; Kazakh oil and gas account for nearly 60% of the GDP of Central Asia. Here are Kazakh oil workers joining the protests:
Javier Blas on Twitter (link).
From the same Twitter stream (Javier Blas, Bloomberg energy correspondent), on Jan 4 2022 OPEC agreed to increase oil production by 400,000 barrels per day, but have achieved only 90,000. Notably, Libya and Nigeria have been unable even to maintain production – wonderful that Mr Cameron burned so much fuel as he turned Libya into an al Qaeda wasteland and “got rid of a nasty dictator”, eh?
Manufacturing is shutting down due to high energy costs; eleven consortia of European manufacturers call for urgent government intervention:
Javier Blas on Twitter again (link).
“Alcoa to halt aluminium production at a Spanish plant for two years, the latest casualty of soaring energy prices in Europe”:
Bloomberg (link).
Emissions continue to rise as countries resort to coal – less energy, but more emissions; the worst of both worlds.
Gas supply is being propped up by US fracking:
Javier Blas again (link).
but that won’t last long; most fracking projects are already in terminal decline due to depletion – take a look at the graphic of drilling traces in the Bakken core area:
Richard Heinberg (link).
War, of course, is the most fuel intensive of all human activities, so please don’t write back blaming “Putin”, which seems to be the trite answer to almost everything these days. Decades of superpower confrontation to control hydrocarbon deposits has exacerbated our predicament enormously. The problem is clearly international, extending far beyond restricted Russian gas supplies to Germany. The problem is depletion of finite resources upon which the world has been encouraged to become overly dependent:
Russian Gas amid Market Tightness – OxfordEnergy.org
Civilisation itself is in grave danger. Hydrocarbons need to be internationally rationed, now! They needed to be rationed two decades ago, but the dominant ideology has been growth, growth, growth; “leave it to the market”. Just as with the climate and ecological crisis, the longer that governments abdicate their responsibilities to humanity as a whole, the less options will remain and the worse it’ll play out, depletion and emissions alike. Hydrocarbons can no longer be squandered frivolously; their use needs to be ramped down under international agreement before they crash into physical limits, and their prices require international regulation so that the manufacturing upon which civilisation depends has predictable energy costs.
Yours sincerely,
Clark KillickKemi Badenoch wrote back saying that rationing was “inappropriate” and the government had everything under control.
Yeah, right!
Thanks Oscar for introducing “collapsology”. These links offer similar insights and proposals for answering ‘what can we do?’ questions.
https://www.faninitiative.net/
https://thesimplerway.info/
https://www.deepadaptation.info/about/what-is-deep-adaptation/I’ve concluded that since its a biological fact that ~2% of us are irredeemably born PSYCHOPATHIC the future is for certain chaos. There will be no sharing of diminishing resources because – the so-called ‘elites’ / ‘oligarchs’ / ‘billionaires’ / ‘politicians’ – are ALL irredeemably PSYCHOPATHIC.
Until this overriding ‘problem’ is ‘solved’ by end of this century likely less than ~1 billion humans will be left alive with a standard of living same as before the fossil fuel age i.e. back to the ~1750s at best.
And thanks Clark for sharing what you wrote to the MP – no surprises in ‘its’ non-response.
Next election the best I can think of doing is to campaign for and vote for ‘None of Above’ :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above
https://www.votenone.org.uk/index.htmlNatasha,
– “I’ve concluded that since its a biological fact that about 2 percent of us are irredeemably born PSYCHOPATHIC the future is for certain chaos.”
Could this be amenable to systemic change? I see psychopathy as a result of biological diversity and thus inevitable, but I can’t think of any reason that it must dominate human affairs, no more than any other extremity of human attributes. It seems likely to me that societal norms, peer pressure, law, democracy etc. all developed to regulate extremities of behaviour, even to direct them to socially advantageous ends. Various societies across history display a broad range in their degree of large scale psychopathy, from very tolerant societies to colonialist and fascist, yet their biological distributions presumably remain similar. The Nazi death cult of 1940s Germany is barely imaginable from German society just twenty years earlier; one generation is insufficient time for a biological transformation. This suggests that societal dynamics determine which of the various behavioural tendencies get expressed.
