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

I don't doubt your sincerity or your anger. I even agree that a lot of what is called "woke" is destructive and counterproductive. I also think it is likely a temporary phase. Not sure about that.

Be that as it may - it is clear from your language that you intended to raise hackles. I responded in kind.

It is a strange world we live in where the Bill of Rights is a pipe dream and a fantasy. — James Riley

Come on, you are being intentionally dense. I've said I support 2nd Amendment rights. I won't argue whether your planned gun-owning utopia is legal or constitutional. I'm pretty sure it won't work and that it will make things much, much worse.

Come on, you are being intentionally dense. — T Clark

Uh, no. Being "pretty sure it won't work" doesn't constitute a response to the merits of my proposition. You brought up the thing about cops shooting unarmed people. Does it sound like a free state that many of our citizens live in? I pointed out MI and I could point out Malheur NWF, the Bundy Ranch and many other situations, including Robert F. William's examples of black people standing up and checking back-water Klan types. Securing a free state takes personal responsibility. It doesn't help when only one "faction" exercises it. In fact, it makes it worse.

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. — T Clark

I am enjoying your scepticism, given that it is not actual skepticism. I've been beset by the subjectivism industry since I first used science and truth in the same sentence. It's almost as if there were an evil demon - no less genius than powerful, deceiving me to believe, everyone else is nuts!

I do not say what I will. I say what's necessary, but I don't believe Elon Musk would be glad to hear it. Sure, he's making money, but his innovations are not adequate to the problem. Admittedly, he's working in a non-ideal context, and he's making money doing some good, but that's the root cause of the problem; the misapplication of technology for ideological ends. To solve this, we have to apply the right technologies for the right reasons.

Interesting thoughts, but everything you say takes planning, foresight and thought. The right and capitalism are not famous for thought. They like invisible hands and laissez-faire.

If you want long-range strategic planning, you have to go out further than the next quarter returns and a fiduciary duty to wedge your head up shareholder's butts. For that, talk to progressives and the left. The sooner you pull them in to the table, the less push-back there will be and the less chance they will haul out lady razor for the next close shave.

Interesting thoughts, but everything you say takes planning, foresight and thought. The right and capitalism are not famous for thought. They like invisible hands and laissez-faire. — James Riley

Okay, but I'm not appealing to the right on an ideological level, but the right as those with the money and connections to business, that have the skills, technologies and resources to do what needs to be done. I can boil it down to three words for the money men: infinite opportunity cost.

Imagine the huge prosperity generated by sustainable markets of 10-12 bn people by the year 2100. But then, look to the resources of the solar system, and beyond. The opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future now, is the, quite possibly infinite - wealth that would be generated in future. And stack this against the absolute losses of failing to secure the future!

If you want long-range strategic planning, you have to go out further than the next quarter returns and a fiduciary duty to wedge your head up shareholder's butts. For that, talk to progressives and the left. The sooner you pull them in, the less push-back there will be and the less chance they will haul out lady razor for the next close shave. — James Riley

Obviously, there's a political dimension to adopting a global, supply side approach to solving climate change, but I too am appealing to the shareholders. I want the most environmental and human benefit for the least cost, with the least disruption to the status quo. It's not coincidental, this just happens to be the right answer scientifically speaking. The molten interior of the earth is the nearest large source of energy available, and harnessing that energy would generate such great wealth, that we could afford sustainability.

A lot of the more extreme woke stuff, like pointing out 50 genders or thinking that men are higher than women on average is a sexist comment, seems to me to be a distraction from real problems. If freedom of speech is a problem, then why not attempt to persuade the US to drop charges on Assange, who is being tortured?

But, the rest of the critique against other aspects of "woke culture", is just resistance to change. In this case, positive changes to society concerning racism, sexism and other nasty aspects of human life.

I don't take issue that wokism points at:

racism, sexism and other nasty aspects of human life. — Manuel

But does it address those issues honestly? I don't think so. It has an hysterical quality that undermines reason. Any attempt to bring facts to the debate is met with accusations of racism, sexism or other nasty insult, and so there's no academic freedom, or peer review, but rather, an hysterical, holier than thou, runaway bandwagon!

Those are the more extreme aspects of it, sure. But is, for example, #MeToo or BLM an aspect that falls under the broad brush "woke culture"? Or in using the term "woke", we refer only to those people who do think that everything is sexist and racist?

Because if it's the latter, then it's true by definition that woke culture is mostly harmful.

If it isn't, then we need to separate the sensible from the irrational. Paying too much attention to the more extreme elements seems to me like adding fuel to the fire.

Those are the more extreme aspects of it, sure. — Manuel

I do not accept that. For example:

University staff given list of banned 'microinsults' they cannot say to trans people
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/01/university-staff-given-list-banned-microinsults-cannot-say-trans/

The way I see it, your identity is not my problem. I owe you respect as a human being and as an individual. I do not have an obligation to learn 99 pronouns to describe genders you claim exist, in face of all scientific orthodoxy! Further, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSMV-5; a mental condition the mainstream woke inculcate in primary school aged children!

Furious parents slam primary school after drag queen 'Flowjob' who shares sexually explicit posts on social media read to pupils as young as four during LGBT history month event attended by MSP Mhairi Black.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038669/Furious-parents-slam-primary-school-drag-queen-Flowjob-read-pupils-young-four.html

This has led to a huge increase in referrals to GIDS:

Child gender identity referrals show huge rise in six years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35532491

An organisation from which 30 therapists resigned since 2016, citing politically correct pressure to hand out puberty blockers to children, on the basis of two or three hour long counselling sessions. See Dr Marcus Evans on twitter. Pandering to political correctness to avoid accusations of racism, sexism or whatever, gives mainstream space to extremists. Or do you endorse all this in the name of woke-ism?

How dare you not?

Being "pretty sure it won't work" doesn't constitute a response to the merits of my proposition. — James Riley

You're proposing a radical change in American federal and state policing and gun policy which you have acknowledged will lead to many deaths. The burden of proof that it will succeed rests with you.

I do not accept that. — counterpunch

Then you associate all aspects of "woke culture" with the most extreme elements. Under than definition, all of it is extreme.

Further, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSMV-5; a mental condition the mainstream woke inculcate in primary school aged children! — counterpunch

This is now a changing aspect of society. Being gay used to be considered a disease too. The British government killed Turing, essentially, for being gay. These views are now considered retrograde, with good reason.

But I do agree that a child is likely too young to know the difference in most cases.

Pandering to political correctness to avoid accusations of racism, sexism or whatever, gives mainstream space to extremists. Or do you endorse all this in the name of woke-ism? — counterpunch

When did I say I endorsed this? I explicitly called this:

extreme woke stuff, like pointing out 50 genders... — Manuel

Yeah. Taken to these levels it is extreme. But most people don't take this stuff seriously at all.

Ask anybody what they think of "sapiosexuals" or of "xim" and "xer", they'll think you're talking about Scientology or something. And there's already pushback on this, you already see it. I don't think it's going to doom our society or destroy culture.

There are much more serious threats than this by far.

And there's already pushback on this, you already see it. I don't think it's going to doom our society or destroy culture.

There are much more serious threats than this by far. — Manuel

Well put.

ou're proposing a radical change in American federal and state policing and gun policy which you have acknowledged will lead to many deaths. The burden of proof that it will succeed rests with you. — T Clark

Again, it is a strange world we live in where the Bill of Rights is a pipe dream and a fantasy, and now, where the burden of proof is upon me because federal and state policing and policy has drifted so far from the BoR (infringement) that many deaths may occur if we honor it.

Seems the burden should be on the other side to say "Oops!, how do we get back to where we should be, with the security of a free state?"

Then you associate all aspects of "woke culture" with the most extreme elements. Under than definition, all of it is extreme. — Manuel

Morally, I think it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on arbitrary characteristics like race, sex, sexuality etc. If the core value, and consequence of woke-ism were a non-discriminatory culture, I'd endorse it, but... how can I put this, the burden of responsibilities to achieve a non discriminatory culture are not evenly distributed by an hysterically dictatorial victim-oppressor, identity politics paradigm. It divides people by identity, and creates antagonisms between them to exploit for political advantage.

Mhari Black was delighted those parents objected to Flo Job! She mounted her moral high horse and condemned the parents as bigots, to great political advantage. Flo Job is a victim; but of whom? Cui bono? Mhari Black is the only beneficiary. It's morally wrong. The very fact that you seek to wash your hands of "more extreme elements" even after I've shown them taking hold in the public sector, in education and the NHS, demonstrates the problem. Outraging public sensibilities then condemning those who protest is the modus operandi and nature of woke-ism. Peace, love and harmony is the last thing they want.

The molten interior of the earth is the nearest large source of energy available, and harnessing that energy would generate such great wealth, that we could afford sustainability. — counterpunch

I'm good with geo heat. But the part about 10 to 12 billion turns me off. Even if your approach could sate their desires, without the giant sucking sound of Earth into their gaping maw, there is the issue of space. If you could promise to reserve for me some elbow room, like 10k square miles of untrammeled wilderness, every other chunk, then I'd be good with it. Oh, and maximum biodiversity.

:100:

I'm good with geo heat. But the part about 10 to 12 billion turns me off. Even if your approach could sate their desires, without the giant sucking sound of Earth into their gaping maw, there is the issue of space. If you could promise to reserve for me some elbow room, like 10k square miles of untrammeled wilderness, every other chunk, then I'd be good with it. Oh, and maximum biodiversity. — James Riley

10-12 bn people, peaking around 2100 was the mid range projection of the UN Population Division - when I was looking at population issues, a few years ago. I'm aware of suggestions fertility is declining more quickly than anticipated. But it remains, in my view - a very manageable trajectory given the sheer scale of the heat energy of the Earth.

A very small proportion of land is currently habitable, but clean energy would allow us to desalinate water to irrigate land, not merely creating enormous wealth, but the opportunity to conserve natural habitats and water courses, by developing wastelands. We could make the deserts bloom!

Regarding push back, the analogy I like to use is this: If you are unjustly kicking a man when he is down, and then you quit kicking for whatever reason (forced to quit or voluntarily quit), you simply cannot expect the man to get up, brush himself off and say "Why thank kind Sir, for stopping that brutal kicking!"

If he gets the opportunity, he's going to F you up. Especially if he perceives you resisted the change. Broaden shoulders, man-up and embrace the change; thanking your lucky stars it's not worse than some weak woke shit. Oh, and respect private property enforcement of woke policy. Go somewhere else if you don't like it. If some tool doesn't have to make a cake for a gay couple, then a private outfit can demand wokeness in their free market sales of goods or services.

So, if you see some group that has been treated like shit for centuries and then the treatment stops, don't expect a "Thank you." Expect a F you. Maybe a little payback. Look around and see what we are doing today that you know damn well we should not be doing, and get on the wagon against it. Be on the right side of history. If you don't, then your offspring down the line, who had nothing to do with it, but nevertheless benefited from it, is going to pay.

But please, don't expect no push back. It's human nature.

how can I put this, the burden of responsibilities to achieve a non discriminatory culture are not evenly distributed by an hysterically dictatorial victim-oppressor, identity politics paradigm. It divides people by identity, and creates antagonisms between them to exploit for political advantage. — counterpunch

Again is Black Lives Matter or #MeToo part of being woke? If it is not, then by definition being woke is extreme and will lead to the divisions you describe. If these movements are part of being woke, then not all of it is extreme, only a small and loud section of (mostly) college students.

The very fact that you seek to wash your hands of "more extreme elements" even after I've shown them taking hold in the public sector, in education and the NHS, demonstrates the problem. — counterpunch

And I said, there are already books being written about the problem, you're seeing pushback in culture too. Pinker, Dawkins, etc. are involved in these things. So are many other intellectuals, podcasters of all stripes, etc.

But of course big corporations and governments are going to side with this type of thinking. It costs them nothing and makes them look good.

But it's a very minor problem compared to, say, how Julian Assange is being treated. If we really cared about free speech, that might be more important than some misguided students.

desalinate water to irrigate land, — counterpunch

developing wastelands. — counterpunch

Don't develop or plow another square inch, and recognize wastelands as those places like cities. There is no such thing as a natural wasteland. If that is done, I'm all in.

Regarding push back, the analogy I like to use is this: If you are unjustly kicking a man when he is down, and then you quit kicking for whatever reason (forced to quit or voluntarily quit), you simply cannot expect the man to get up, brush himself off and say "Why thank kind Sir, for stopping that brutal kicking!" — James Riley

An analogy is good, because then you don't have to talk about real things. It allows you to describe an injustice, and then suppose it demonstration of some actual state of affairs! I don't accept your analogy. It doesn't refer to anything real. A realistic view describes civilisation progressing from less and worse knowledge, toward more and better knowledge over time.

But to the contrary, the woke ignore the fact that slavery was practiced all around the world since the dawn of time until western civilisation developed the philosophy, politics and economics to allow for individual freedom. It is the very same civilisation that the woke attack - relentlessly and in particular, for what was in fact a relatively short lived involvement in the ancient history of slavery. The woke are going backward with regard to knowledge. They stoke grievance with lies. They are a menace, and a false advocate to the identities they are parasitic upon!

I don't accept your analogy. It doesn't refer to anything real. — counterpunch

An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to simply point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. That, you have failed to do.

the woke ignore the fact that slavery was practiced all around the world since the dawn of time until western civilisation developed the philosophy, politics and economics to allow for individual freedom. — counterpunch

Irrelevant. Let me draw another analogy for you, in an effort to address your concern about the failure of the woke to address the fact that evil was prevalent and woke people got rid of it. In the law, if X steals Z from Y, then Z still belongs to Y. If X has children and passes Z on to them, Z still belongs to Y, even if X's children don't know it. If Y has kids, then Z belongs to them. If X invests Z and grows it, all that growth belongs to Y and/or Y's kids. If X's kids invest Z and grow it, Z and all the growth belong to Y's kids. If all this occurs over generations, where X and all of X's generations hence have risen up on the ill-gotten gains of X, then the generations of X owe. X's generations can't look around and whine like a little bitch when Y and and the woke Xs decide to try to make Y whole. And X's generations can't bitch if Y is a little pissed and flexing when Y get gets his turn.

Now, we have "statutes of limitation", but they aren't designed to protect X or X's generations. They are designed to protect the courts from loss of evidence. In the case of the balls-out theft of labor from blacks, and the theft of land from Indians (and genocide upon them), there is not loss of evidence. In regards to the latter, "Treaties shall be the supreme law of the land" and our violation of them was not merely screwing the Indians, it was a violation of our own law, so we screwed ourselves. And, where a people is a sovereign, then X never died. X still lives, as does Y. And in the case of blacks, the evidence still exists.

I tried talking to Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg about solving climate change with magma energy... — counterpunch

:rofl:

Have you actually extensively researched the viability of geothermal? If so, can you point me to some papers, as most of what I have been able to find suggests that it's suitability is quite geographically limited.

This has been pointed out, previously, but to no avail.

Have you actually extensively researched the viability of geothermal? If so, can you point me to some papers, as most of what I have been able to find suggests that it's suitability is quite geographically limited. — Janus

Geothermal is geographically limited. The specific conditions in which geothermal heat is close enough to the surface to be reached by drilling are quite rare. The idea is to convert heat energy into electricity, that could then be converted into hydrogen fuel, and shipped around the world. Hydrogen could then be burnt in traditional power stations with minimal modifications, to produce electricity. In this way, we would utilize the larger part of existing national energy infrastructures, converting them to clean energy.

I cannot point you to any research papers you cannot discover yourself via google. Have you read Wilson Clarke's Energy for Survival - alternatives to extinction? The Hydrogen Society by Arno Evers? The Ghia Hypothesis by James Lovelock? I cannot provide a map, blueprints and a business plan, if that's what you're asking, but I am quite well read on the subject!

Irrelevant. Let me draw another analogy for you, — James Riley

No!

Sounds like you would need a massive rapid conversion of infrastructure, and an unprecedented level of transport, which prior to the ability to use the hydrogen yet to come, would necessarily rely mostly on fossil fuels, and hydrogen has its storage problems from what I've read.

I can't judge whether such an undertaking could be viable; I doubt anyone can. It might be viable, but it would be a huge risk to treat hydrogen as the sole answer to the problem. In any case, such a thing will never happen, so there's not much point wasting too much thought on it.

No! — counterpunch

:broken: :grin: