Solution #2 Stop

All the racists stop being all racist and stuff.

I like this. Equality of outcome is ridiculous. In the end some guy wrote that there has to be a tyrant to enforce these outcomes.

How much energy is there in a cubic kilometre of rock heated to 700'C?

I suggest the right solve climate change, and deny the left sustainability, used as an anti-capitalist battering ram. The right are in a position to attack this problem from the supply side and defeat it - because they have the investment capital and relationships with business to develop and apply the technological infrastructure to harness the massive heat energy of the earth, producing limitless electrical energy to produce hydrogen fuel, for carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling, and so support sustainable capitalist growth going forward.

In my opinion, it's the only way it will work long term. It follows from the physics of energy and entropy that we need more energy to spend to strike a balance between human welfare and environmental sustainability. It's a plan more likely to appeal to the right than the left, for the left have identified very strongly with a "limits to growth" approach to sustainability, and seem to be planning a low energy future I don't believe would work long term, because it doesn't solve the problem. It retreats in face of it, while implying authoritarian government acting at odds to the natural interests of the people. Limits to growth is a conclusion, and a fate we should not accept. 200 years of capitalist progress has outpaced Malthus' pessimistic prophesies thus far, via the application of technology, and can continue to do so.

Perhaps capitalists are worried that say, 300 years down the line, civilisation powered by limitless clean energy might achieve some sort of post material equality! There are worse problems one could have!

How much energy is there in a cubic kilometre of rock heated to 700'C? — counterpunch

Rock has a heat capacity of 2000 Joules per kilogram per °C.

Rock weighs 3000 kg per cubic meter.

J=4200000000000

200 years of capitalist progress has outpaced Malthus' pessimistic prophesies thus far, via the application of technology — counterpunch

Thomas Malthus has been dead since 1834. Dead as a doornail. His famous book was written in 1798. Why is his old book your favorite touchstone for failed theories? Do you fault him for not thinking of everything that would happen in the future that might undermine his theory?

and can continue to do so. — counterpunch

And here's your famous idea that may very well become invalidated by unseen developments. Have a little sympathy for old Tom Malthus.

My theory is that there are already too many people, whether they are well-fed or not, and I do not look forward to their being 10 or 12 billion of us.

300 years down the line, civilisation powered by limitless clean energy might achieve some sort of post material equality! There are worse problems one could have! — counterpunch

This is the flip side of Malthus, the post scarcity society. It may be as vanishing has his proposal.

"Too-cheap-to-meter" low to no carbon energy that you expect to get from hot rocks is a fine idea. But if it is so feasible, how come capitalists have not bored down a ways, installed the necessary equipment, and started generating low-to-no-carbon energy which will cost them little and which they can sell for as much as they can get (like they do with everything else)?

200 years of capitalist progress has outpaced Malthus' pessimistic prophesies thus far, via the application of technology
— counterpunch

Thomas Malthus has been dead since 1834. Dead as a doornail. His famous book was written in 1798. Why is his old book your favorite touchstone for failed theories? Do you fault him for not thinking of everything that would happen in the future that might undermine his theory? — Bitter Crank

Malthus is not a failed theory. It has achieved enormous success. Malthus is the philosophical ancestor of limits to growth theory that underlies the West's entire approach to green issues. His Essay on Population suggested people would starve en masse because they breed faster than we can develop land to produce food. (In fact, we invented tractors and now, more people are better fed than ever.) Yet this "Malthusian pessimism" continues as the basis of limits to growth approaches to sustainability - an approach that also makes people the problem, when in fact people devise solutions that multiply resources.

The argument not being made is that capitalism can overcome this problem. I'm not blaming Malthus. I'm pointing out he was wrong, and for obvious reasons the left are blind to the fact, while the right retreat into denial. It's not necessary to hide from the climate and ecological crisis. History suggests we can solve this. The science suggests we can solve this. You tell me, why aren't we solving this?

"Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbours under the hypocritical cloak of ... the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power. Individual self-reflection, return of the individual to the ground of human nature, to his own deepest being with its individual and social destiny - here is the beginning of a cure for that blindness which reigns at the present hour."
- Carl Jung, Two Essays in Analytical Psychology

I think the tactics used to fight the War on Christmas could be used as Solutions for a Woke Dystopia.

Solution #3 De-fund Higher Education

De-fund the higher education complex by eliminating all school loans and all tax subsidies. This would catalyze several outcomes including greatly lowering tuition for regular folks, getting rid of the vast majority of the bureaucrats in colleges and universities that do nothing constructive, and most importantly, substantially raise the quality of education by eliminating worthless subject-matter and returning to merit-based grading, admissions, and certification (via an independent organisation).

I suggest the right solve climate change, and deny the left sustainability, used as an anti-capitalist battering ram. — counterpunch

Let me see if I understand. You're going to defeat the liberals by giving them what they want. Is that right? Boy, that'll teach 'em a lesson. They'll never know what hit 'em.

Solution #4 Stop, Part 2

Tell the police to stop killing unarmed people.

Let me see if I understand. You're going to defeat the liberals by giving them what they want. Is that right? Boy, that'll teach 'em a lesson. They'll never know what hit 'em. — T Clark

A solution to climate change is not what the libs want though! Not really! I tried talking to Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg about solving climate change with magma energy, and they were not in the least interested. They protest against climate change, but it's really a cornerstone of that whole politically correct, anti-capitalist, middle class, woke white guilt paradigm they're pushing. I suggest proving the capitalist thesis by solving climate change, exploiting a freely available resource - magma energy, to the utmost extent, and yes, I think that would fundamentally undermine the green neo marxist, anti western platform.

A solution to climate change is not what the libs want though! Not really! I tried talking to Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg about solving climate change with magma energy, and they were not in the least interested. They protest against climate change, but it's really a cornerstone of that whole politically correct, anti-capitalist, middle class, woke white guilt paradigm they're pushing. I suggest proving the capitalist thesis by solving climate change, exploiting a freely available resource - magma energy, to the utmost extent, and yes, I think that would fundamentally undermine the green neo marxist, anti western platform. — counterpunch

Still seems goofy that the best reason you can think of for dealing with climate change is to stick it to the lefties. And, as I wrote, whatever your reason, let's do it.

Still seems goofy that the best reason you can think of for dealing with climate change is to stick it to the lefties. And, as I wrote, whatever your reason, let's do it. — T Clark

Goofy is what we got! Let's work with it! The trick is, the left's approach to sustainability is wrong, and yet they've convinced the right of its validity. The right are in denial of climate change because of what they imagine the implications would be, but in fact, need not be.

By virtue of physical facts, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. The energy is there - beneath our feet, limitless quantities of high grade power. As a consequence, there are no limits to resources, and the way to solve climate change is to power through.

Presumably, it will be easier to convince the right that the left are wrong in their approach to climate change; that we need more energy, not less, and to attack the problem from the supply side by the industrial scale application of technology - than it would be to convince even the greenest of lefties that they are mistaken, and a pro capitalist, prosperous and sustainable future is possible afterall!

Solution # 1 To the real source

Prohibit by law that a person over 50 years of age can hold any political office.

By virtue of physical facts, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. The energy is there - beneath our feet, limitless quantities of high grade power. As a consequence, there are no limits to resources, and the way to solve climate change is to power through. — counterpunch

I don't know whether your particular solution to the energy problem is the right one. Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't the solution. Not that it won't work, I don't know about that. I just think the final solution will be a bunch of different approaches. Unless...

I just think the final solution will be a bunch of different approaches. Unless... — T Clark

That is the current "plan" - so that's a safe bet. Would you like to go double or nothing on "a bunch of different approaches" actually working to secure a sustainable future?

Wind and solar cannot produce enough energy to meet current demand. The UK alone would need something like 10,000 windmills to meet current demand, plus 5000 more to account for electric cars from 2030, and they would need replacing every 25 years. Only a fraction of those are being built, and so the principal policy consequence of constructing wind and solar is continued dependence on fossil fuels. Secondary to this is a policy of blaming the end consumer, and by extension, over-population. That way madness lies.

We would be far better served by magma energy. I'm sure it can work. The energy is there. We can drill that deep. The source of the energy is easily sufficient to meet current global energy demand, and could exceed that tenfold to capture carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle, produce hydrogen fuel - whatever is required. Near limitless clean energy would completely change the calculus of the existential equation, and allow for continued capitalist growth. That means, we can 'get there from here' - going forward. And that's the only realistic solution - in my opinion, short of Mr Fusion!

And I suppose you would decide what the "worthless" fields of study are? Grow up Mr/Ms Sophomore.

Tell the police. . . . — T Clark

They've been told. No joy.

stop killing unarmed people. — T Clark

Maybe people should arm themselves. If you're going to get shot anyway, might as well be legit. And arming up seems to work for some. It's okay for Billy Bob and Cletus to be sporting guns, but, well, "those people" not so much. We don't see cops engaging insurrectionists in Michigan or D.C., but they are all over BLM. Hmmmm?

There was a difference in ideas between MLK and Robert F. Williams (Negros with Guns) about the pacifist vs the fight-back response to white oppression. Williams made a good case on real life examples.

Little known fact, but Ronald Reagan's CA gun control came about as a result of a fear of black people arming up.

Blacks, as a minority, would need their white compadres to back their hand, but the left seems to walk away from some of their delineated civil liberties (2ndA). Oh well.

That is the current "plan" - so that's a safe bet. Would you like to go double or nothing on "a bunch of different approaches" actually working to secure a sustainable future? — counterpunch

Just about all complex problems in a society as big as the US's and the world's get solved using "a bunch of different approaches." Not only that, you have to try a bunch of different ways to find out which ones work. VHS tapes won the battle against several other recording technologies back in the late 70s and early 80s. Your magma geothermal technology is innovative and not fully tested. It makes sense to aim our efforts in more than one direction. It would be irresponsible not to.

Blacks, as a minority, would need their white compadres to back their hand, but the left seems to walk away from some of their delineated civil liberties (2ndA). Oh well. — James Riley

First off, I am offering my solutions as responses to Synthesis's intentionally provocative posts. My language was also intentionally provocative.

Second, I really don't think arming people is the right way to go. I think a lot more people will die.

Third, I'm liberal, but I think gun control is a bad sell for Democrats. I know conservative gun owners who have no objection to reasonable gun restrictions, but they won't trust Democrats to take their Second Amendment beliefs seriously. I wonder what the vote count in the presidential election would have been if gun control were taken off the Democratic platform.

Just about all complex problems in a society as big as the US's and the world's get solved using "a bunch of different approaches." Not only that, you have to try a bunch of different ways to find out which ones work. VHS tapes won the battle against several other recording technologies back in the late 70s and early 80s. Your magma geothermal technology is innovative and not fully tested. It makes sense to aim our efforts in more than one direction. It would be irresponsible not to. — T Clark

I can only continue to suggest that green energy technologies are, perhaps deliberately insufficient to meet our needs going forward. I've run the numbers on wind, and I just don't see the UK building 15,000 windmills every 25 years, at a cost of £200m each, just to keep the lights on.

That so, one must expect continued dependence on fossil fuels, coupled with authoritarian government imposing reductions in quality of life; and that having ongoing implications for democratic politics, that will make it very difficult to maintain a sustainable policy approach long term.

Further, there are international disputes about national responsibility for climate change depending on whether contribution to global emissions is a consequence of population size, or energy consumption per capita; such that international agreements are not legally binding; and as soon as delegates return from COP 26 - the natural national interest is in economic growth, and free riding upon the climate change efforts of others.

Magma energy sidesteps all this by transcending the calculus of limits to growth. Because (I confidently predict that) magma energy is more than sufficient to meet our energy needs, it allows us to attack the problem from the supply side - producing clean energy in abundance, to extract carbon from the atmosphere and desalinate water to irrigate land, rather than blaming industry, and the consumer/voter for the carbon cost of a continued dependence on fossil fuels.

I think a lot more people will die. — T Clark

You are correct. Unless and until members of a community learn to take personal responsibility for their own actions, and treat each other with dignity and respect, there would most definitely be a thinning of the herd. I just can't help but think how things would have been different if most of those adult cell phones had been ARs slung politely over the backs of all the onlookers Floyd's murder. No need to brandish because Chauvin wouldn't have been acting up.

In fact, we may not even have to arm up. Close your eyes and imagine this: Illinois and Chicago (I chose them instead of MN because of all the deaths there now) decide to issue state-of-the-art hand-held military shoulder weapons and side arms, along with unlimited ammunition to all men and women who don't have criminal records. Included with the package would be training (starting in early school) in the use thereof. Here are the expected responses from different communities:

White supremacists: "Wait, what?"
Fascists: "Wait, what?"
NRA: "Wait, what?"
Inner city gangbangers: "Wait, what?"
Criminals" "Wait, what?"
Law Enforcement: "Wait, what?"

So, now that everyone agrees we should wait, LOL, we could all pump the breaks and start revisiting those little things like personal responsibility, dignity, respect, and our own actions. If the threat were real, and we'd be training up and arming all the good, law-abiding citizens in the worst areas of Chicago (who, I believe, vastly outnumber everyone else), then there might be a reckoning.

If crime rates did not drop and the foregoing "Wait, what?" communities did not start to mind their Ps and Qs, then yes, we go forward with the program. And yes, there would be a period of blood. But in the end, because good people (currently unarmed) outnumber the bad (currently armed), I think things would settle out to the point where people would stop carrying because it can be inconvenient for some folks, especially when there is no longer a need. We may even end up with Bobby's twirling their night sticks as they whistled down the sidewalk.

I think Europe doesn't deal with these issues because they suffered through two World Wars in thirty years. That, and they don't have the history of independence we have here.

Anyway, I periodically find the truth to be counter-intuitive so I give it thought.

Edited to add: In my fantasy world, the education begins early and is cutting edge and includes a deep steeping in the Liberal Arts, reading, writing, languages, philosophy, logic, civics, history, political science, sociology, phycology, and etc. All, including the guns, voluntary, of course.

Gee, you're the second person here in the last couple of days who made a reference to my educational status.

I must be digging the right yards!

Solution # 1 To the real source

Prohibit by law that a person over 50 years of age can hold any political office. — gikehef947

Why don't we make that "over 20" so we can allow actual children run the country instead of the adult children who are doing such a stellar job.

First off, I am offering my solutions as responses to Synthesis's intentionally provocative posts. My language was also intentionally provocative. — T Clark

Provocative? These woke people are complete morons by any yardstick. I am just trying to figure out how anybody could believe this non-sense.

I just read in one of my medical journals (The "Diversity" Issue) how physicians (who have to be the most color-blind folks there are) have to reassess their entire lives by taking into consideration how their white privilege has led to all kinds of bad outcomes.

The fact that this kind of BS has made it into professional journals is a very sad commentary of the state of affairs in the country.

Round-up every self-identified woke college and university student — synthesis

And prove their point?

You see, they know people like you are out there (people who would round others up if they could), and as a result of the natural human inclination toward push-back, they want to make you pay. And, because of your recalcitrance, you should.

We all know better, but we don't always do better, and when we don't do better, someone is getting screwed, and when we are given decades, if not centuries, to un-fuck the mess we created but refuse to do so, then we can expect the pendulum to have a blade attached to it upon return. The way to avoid that, is to do better, and part of doing better is to advocate and legislate for those who are getting screwed.

In short, we made our bed so we can sleep in it. Or, we can wring our hands in consternation and make mountains out of mole hills and complain about boogey men who ain't no thang. So, the next time there is a woke power point presentation or policy change that has all the horrid imposition of a piece of cloth over the face, we just man up, we understand, and we just chill.

I can only continue to suggest that green energy technologies are, perhaps deliberately insufficient to meet our needs going forward. I've run the numbers on wind, and I just don't see the UK building 15,000 windmills every 25 years, at a cost of £200m each, just to keep the lights on. — counterpunch

Say what you will. Costs for renewable and associated energy technologies; wind, solar, batteries; are approaching or surpassing those for fossil fuels. Most of this improvement has taken place in the last decade. Given the attention they are getting, I would expect things to continue to improve. Elon Musk and similar businessmen are kicking ass. You need to find someone like him to put a few billion down on your magma technology. The market.

Magma energy sidesteps all this by transcending the calculus of limits to growth. Because (I confidently predict that) magma energy is more than sufficient to meet our energy needs, it allows us to attack the problem from the supply side — counterpunch

I'm skeptical. Your confidence is not enough to change the course of energy policy. As I wrote before though, I do endorse your "Screw the libs, give them what they want" strategy.

You are correct. Unless and until members of a community learn to take personal responsibility for their own actions, and treat each other with dignity and respect, there would most definitely be a thinning of the herd. — James Riley

But JR, you seemed like such a nice young man.

If crime rates did not drop and the foregoing "Wait, what?" communities did not start to mind their Ps and Qs, then yes, we go forward with the program. And yes, there would be a period of blood. But in the end, because good people (currently unarmed) outnumber the bad (currently armed), I think things would settle out to the point where people would stop carrying because it can be inconvenient for some folks, especially when there is no longer a need. We may even end up with Bobby's twirling their night sticks as they whistled down the sidewalk. — James Riley

This is the pipiest of all pipe dreams.

In my fantasy world, the education begins early and is cutting edge and includes a deep steeping in the Liberal Arts, reading, writing, languages, philosophy, logic, civics, history, political science, sociology, phycology, and etc. All, including the guns, voluntary, of course. — James Riley

Agreed. If we're gong to fantasize, we should definitely include education, especially the study of algae.

This is the pipiest of all pipe dreams. — T Clark

If we're gong to fantasize, — T Clark

It is a strange world we live in where the Bill of Rights is a pipe dream and a fantasy. :wink: