Interesting that you import sexuality into this discussion. I didn't raise it, but now you have - I wonder to what degree the assumption of socially constructed gender is really an excuse for submissive gay men, to play the female role - without experiencing the psychological implications of submission? — counterpunch

One of the cheats in the gender discussion is the construction "gender assigned at birth". 999 times out of a 1000 gender is identified by glancing at the external genitals. The number of situations where sex organs are so ambiguous that a doctor would need to arbitrarily "assign" a sex is very small. Use of the verb "assigned" is a clever way of asserting that gender is arbitrary.

There is some validity to your observation. It could be extended to say "socially constructed gender" is a justification for men and women whose sexual orientation falls in the middle of the Kinsey scale to experiment with cross dressing, cross-role playing, changing pronouns, etc. Some males (no idea how many) may just find the female gender role more attractive (whether or not they are gay). (Sexual orientation is different than gender confusion.)

I presume you are using "female role" and "submission" in the sexual sense.

The problem I have with that part of your observation is that a large share of gay men perform both roles in the same encounter with equal competence and satisfaction. Maybe once upon a past--pre gay lib--time men thought in terms of female roles and submission (pitcher/catcher, active/passive, dominant/submissive). Certainly the old psychiatric literature (pre 1972) used that terminology.

At least from my (fairly extensive) experience most gay men are actively involved in sexual encounters--period. Maybe in "rough trade sex" (sexual encounters with roughish, working class heterosexual men) the old terminology would still be relevant -- but even then, gay men who like rough trade pursue it. (Full disclosure: my few encounters with rough trade didn't end well.)

There are some specialty areas, like bondage and discipline which involve pretty much exclusive master/slave, top/bottom roles--and this would be true in heterosexual B&D. Or so I gather, anyway. I find the B&D/S&M scene sort of interesting, the same way I find fascist gangs interesting.

In 1962, in his book “Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible”, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated his famous Three Laws, of which the third law is the best-known and most widely cited: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

Back in the 1980s, Apple published several more-or-less plain language books explaining how the various parts of the Macintosh computer worked. I could understand it. I loved my Mac Plus computer. It came without a hard drive (most people bought one as an accessory--20 megabytes; seemed big at the time); there were two 3.5" floppy drives. I used it a lot.

Even with the explanatory books, there was / is something magical about computers (as long as they are working properly; they become a cursed burden when they are not).

Sometime back in the late 80s or early 90s someone published a study on how composition changes when written by hand, typed, or written on a computer screen. I can attest that there are, as the study found, differences. The ease of editing on screen (rather than paper) helps a great deal with the flow of ideas. (However, almost all of the world's great literature was written by hand.) Add to the screen the ability to look things up in a flash (like the quote from Clark -- which I couldn't remember verbatim) helps too.

I have read writers on the left and the right who are not lunatics, but sometimes it seems like the same toxicon (Latin poison) has addled the brains of people across the political spectrum. I can't quite put a finger on what the toxic stuff is that rewires the brains of people on the left and the right, so that they both inhabit separate but equally distorted realities.

I do not see any equivalence between the most vocal people on the left and right; the gender extremists (left) and Proud Boys (right) for example are made of different stuff. But there is something similar in the way they both formed around extreme granule positions.

Extremism isn't new, of course. I just find it perplexing that I can not detect what, exactly, is driving the current extremes.

A different extremism is that of the leftists and tender-hearted American liberals who would like to open the borders to the entire oppressed population everywhere. Yes, we could do that, but the open-border advocates have not reckoned with the effect that would have on the 320,000,000 citizens.

I wish I could answer more precisely, but it's all still very preliminary. — counterpunch

That's precise enough -- close enough for government work, as the saying goes.

So, many small bore holes rather than a few big ones.

Another geothermal approach which is being used (to a small extent) in Minnesota (and other places) involves the differential temperature of soil about 6 to 10 feet below the surface. In the winter buried pipes extract heat and in the summer dissipate heat. The soils are generally around 50-55º F all year round, depending a bit on soil type and rainfall. This approach is good for homes and small buildings. Either trenches can be dug to bury the pipes, (or pipes can be tunneled) or bore holes can be used.

This approach works in temperate zones. In very hot areas subsoil temperatures tend to be too warm for cooling.

Little know fact, maybe. The pre-refrigerator ice industry was started in New England in the early 1800s, taking ice out of lakes in January and February. The ice cubes (big ones) were packed in sawdust and would last into the summer. The first big market was in the Caribbean and the American south. Soon, however, ice was being shipped to England and the ice industry spread across the northern states. An apartment I lived in in 1971 in St. Paul had previously had ice boxes in the kitchens. There were doors in the hallways for icemen to deliver the chunks of ice directly into the ice box. The doors were still there in '71; the ice boxes (made of wood) were converted to cupboards.

Householders had to empty a pan under the ice box which caught the melting water.

Of course people used the ice to cool drinks, too.

I'm wondering about heat transference. what is the medium between the hot magma and the pipes in the chamber containing the water that is to be turned into steam? How big a bore hole are we talking about? How much heat transfer surface will be needed to absorb the heat necessary to superheat the water in the pipes? How much heat will be lost from the steam between the bottom of the well and the turbine? Is the amount of heat loss significant?

One of the technical difficulties I see is getting enough piping into the bottom of the well, pumping water down, and getting high pressure steam back up at the top. I'm not an engineer, so I don't have any tables to consult here. But suppose a pipe breaks at the bottom of the well--either a cold water supply or a steam return. How would it get fixed? Will the operators be able to pull the everything out of the hole quickly enough so that too much generating time isn't lost?

District heating distributes steam for several miles, but building-heating steam is neither superheated nor under very high pressure.

a political party that recognises science as truth" is not necessarily a party of scientists. It's a party of people who think science is true - and the best guide to a prosperous and sustainable future. — counterpunch

I was never a scientist. I have spent a lot of energy and time overcoming a mainline Protestant religious upbringing and its world view. Some time back I made a commitment to a scientific understanding of the world. (Of course I made a commitment. I'm a religious atheist--sacred vows get made.) The world view of science is that the world is understandable--not obviously understandable, but with systematic study what is not understood can be made known. The project is not complete, of course.

A Science Party? Good idea. Something to counter the "Know Nothing" organization, and the 3D party of Deny, Deflect, & Deceive. The whole corporate-political mafia of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels.

So, there are already people who would happily join the Science Party. Just be aware that while rational people (including scientists) do their best, we are driven by the same ir-rational drives as everyone else. You make an excellent case for cheap abundant electricity and hydrogen fuel produced by tapping geothermal energy. I've read your extensive research which has been vetted by numerous academic peer groups. You have discovered the solution. So what's the problem?

The trouble is, I just don't like it. I want to like it, but I can't. I'm in love with solar. The sun is the way! And I'll do everything in my power to make sure that your project is torpedoed at the earliest possible opportunity. Solar IS the way forward. The preceding bold/italicized text was for RHETORICAL PURPOSES ONLY.

That's one of the things that can go wrong with science based politics: Even the best scientists have egos; have vested interests; get emotional; can be treacherous. Highly rational science-politicians have the same batch of emotional drives as the average orangutang. We all do. Our limbic system is our Achilles heel.

Still, you have the right idea. Just don't expect totally smooth sailing.

or else, overcome this fascination and write it off as inappropriate. — baker

It's also a way for envious people to cut large figures down to size. "AH HA!!! Lewis Carroll might be famous for this supposedly great story, but he was a pervert, so he's just one less dead white European male making me feel inferior!

One of my literature professors said that happy people don't produce great works of art. — baker

I've heard that too. It might have some truth to it, and it might also be bullshit or wishful thinking. Maybe I haven't produced anything great because I am just not unhappy enough? "The tortured, anguished artist valiantly overcoming his misery to produce the great work" is more likely a work of fiction by someone who was neither tortured or anguished, at least when writing the book.

My own experience has been that serious unhappiness is not a productive condition.

Why is so much fiction about unhappy people? Because unhappy people are more interesting. As Tolstoy says in the first sentence of Anna Karenina, "All happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." It's a more satisfying experience I suppose to produce works of art about unhappy people than find something interesting in boring, monotonously happy people. Happiness, success, predictability, pastel prettiness, etc. make for a very dull story. A good story needs some grit, failure, dark color, misery... to contrast against the sunshine.

All that said, sure: some miserable people have turned out great art. We just shouldn't count on it.

Not that it's much related to the discussion, but just to say this is a really important point that is often overlooked in discussions about this, understandably, very sensitive topic. — Isaac

Your insightful comments about

How is a young adult supposed to have a healthy sex life after the age of consent (in their particular country) if, prior to that age, they have it rammed down their throats that being thought of as a sexual person is so manifestly evil that it should be punished with widespread contempt... — Isaac

helps explain the problem raised by @FrankGSterleJr's OP. Despite the several 'sexual revolutions' that have happened, a lot of people are very conflicted about sex and sexuality. People who were screwed up in childhood 60 or 70 years ago have not necessarily become 'unscrewed' over the years. It took me a long time. And despite everything, young people are still getting screwed up.

All that makes it difficult for many intelligent, educated people to think calmly about matters such as Lewis Carroll (Dodgson) photographing nude girls. Lolita, anyone? The middle aged literature professor Humbert Humbert was obsessed with a 12 year old girl, his stepchild, no less. I'm sure there are people who would like Nabokov dug up and posthumously burnt at the stake! I suppose Stanley Kubrick, who produced the 1962 film version of the Lolita should join Nabokov in the fire.

Distinguishing the artist from his art is a basic skill. As KK observed (hyperbolically) most of his art heroes turned out to be monsters. I hope he can still enjoy the assholes' works.

I'm so used to my male heroes in the arts turning out to be assholes and monsters that it would shock me if anyone I admired artistically turned out to be a decent man — Kenosha Kid

A lot of art (all categories) has been produced by people who were/are known to be happy, pleasant, normal, decent people. And a lot of great art has been produced by people who were/are known to be screwed up, unhappy, abrasive, abusive people.

Sometimes knowing the biography of the artist helps one understand and appreciate a work, sometimes it doesn't. Some people want to prosecute the artist for any moral deficiencies they can find, and other people are content to not turn over every rock, looking for shock value.

So basically softcore child porn is fine: it's just the hard stuff that's wrong? What if drugs are used so that the child doesn't remember being molested? What if the photographed child becomes traumatised at a later age? Does it suddenly become immoral, say, 12 years after the event? — Kenosha Kid

There were Victorians producing what we can confidently label "pornography" for sale. It was an up-market trade. Some of it was soft -- from gauzy soft to harder material. What Dodgson was doing might make later observers nervous and squeamish, but it wasn't porn.

The Victorians also liked to make headless photographs. Victorian snuff? More likely they did it because they discovered they could.

How about Wilhelm von Gloeden and his photos of naked Italian boys and young men, or Thomas Eakins' American realist paintings? Was Eakins doing porn or merely realistically painting nude males swimming?

Point is, if we can't keep our categories clear, then any discussion of art, artists, personal preferences, personal practices, and so on ends up in a meaningless muddle.

It isn't 'selfish' to want to be young (again) but you still are young (unless there is something you are not telling us). So make the most of it.

People do age at different rates. Still, at 32 you are just a few years past full adult development of your brain (which is finished, give or take 15 minutes, around age 25. 32? Many people hit their peak around 40, and then plateau for maybe 15 years. At 75, I'm certainly on the decline physically, but mentally I feel as sharp as ever. Anthony Fauci is 80 and is still going strong.

A chronic lack of quality sleep is a real hazard to health; if you aren't sleeping well, start looking for an explanation and then do something about it. If an internet search, or library search yields no good guidance for you, or if your best efforts don't lead to quality sleep, then check out a sleep clinic. You might have sleep apnea (a breathing problem you wouldn't necessarily be aware of) or you might be practicing very bad sleep hygiene.

Genes aside, we can at least slow aging down by a) not smoking b) drinking in moderation c) eating a healthy diet d) regular exercise appropriate to your age (for a 32 year old, everything else being equal, you might want to do daily moderate exercise) f) sleep 8 hours a night g) live a life that you find enjoyable, meaningful, and satisfying -- whatever that is for you.

Even if you do all that and still have vigorous sex at 100, you are still going to die at some point. Once you become "old", you might start looking forward to dying as the fitting end of a good life.

seems like 'cancel culture' to me — Wayfarer

Exactly.

Photographing young naked girls or boys should not, in itself, be a cause for concern. The children didn't mind, the parents didn't mind, and if nothing untoward was done with the photographs, why should anyone care?

If Lewis Carroll himself later found pleasure in viewing the photographs, why should anyone else concerned themselves with the matter?

Photographing nude children isn't the same as photographing children engaging in sexual acts with other children, and children engaging in sex with other children on their own volition isn't a problem either.

What is harmful, and nobody has suggested that Carroll did this, is coercing children to engage in sex acts. It's the coercion that is harmful. Also harmful to a child is parents flying into hysteria with their child, having discovered that they were engaging in voluntary sex play.

Frank, have you been watching QAnon tapes?

Other animals also have built-in clocks. Dogs, for instance start looking out the window for their favorite person to arrive home from work at about the same time every day. I suspect that any built in biological feature (like built in clocks) that we have, other animals also have.

Here's another time feature: as people get older, they report that time (seems to) pass by faster. I'm 75 and can attest that time seems to pass quite a bit faster for me now than it did when I was 50. I did not experience this acceleration of time when I was in college or in my late 20s and 30s.

Faster passing time isn't unpleasant or troublesome.

Messenger: "The people are revolting."
King Hanover: "Yes, they certainly are."
Messenger: "What shall we do?"
King Hanover: "Release the hounds."

And I am very happy about the demonstrations. Can public resistance bring Putin down? Given big enough demonstrations that continue long enough, and with at least tacit cooperation from at least some of the powers that be, Putin might be brought down, or at least humiliated (egotistical thugs like Putin and Trump hate that).

But then there is the Hong Kong example, where massive demonstrations and tacit cooperation from some of the powers that be, the apparatchiks didn't crumble. Of course Russia and Hong Kong are vastly different.

I’m a very realistic logical thinking person so naturally I think — Mtl4life098

Think more.

I feel my issues and lack of self worth or drive for more or better or happiness all stem from being young and thinking hard about death. — Mtl4life098

You and millions of young people your age feel like you lack worth, or drive, or... something and you all worry about death.

Should you see a psychiatrist? No. Better self-worth comes from working to achieve worthwhile goals. There are many worthwhile things to do. Everyone has issues. You have issues now; you'll have issues until you drop dead. That's just life, so get on with it.

The Purpose of Life? You are part of the universe. Does the universe need a purpose?

Death: Yes, you will die. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe 70 years from now. Take care of yourself: don't smoke; don't drink too much; don't play with guns; eat a balanced diet, get a reasonable amount of exercise, and aim for a good night's sleep. No use killing yourself with bad habits.

It seems like V. Putin is as firmly in place as any of his soviet predecessors were. Who would remove him? Street demonstrators? Angry voters? Truth-telling? Putin is not a one-man act. Does he not have plenty of powerful friends (fellow liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels) whose mutual interests are going to be protected all round?

Yes, one day Putin will be removed from office, perhaps by the undertaker. Or, maybe another crook will oust him and pick up where Putin left off. I don't expect a refreshing revolution and an outbreak of democratic virtue in the near term.

We are living it daily, with all the horrors it entails — Jack Cummins

We are living it daily, with all the joys it entails, as well.

What about our favorite foods; natural scenes of which we are fond (sunsets, birds, trees, flowers, mountains, rain, snow, all that); fine films (even TV shows we enjoy); poetry, music, or just familiar voices we like to hear; the joys of carnal pleasures; savage cartoons of stupid politicians; big planes taking off; our dogs keeping a watchful eyes on us; storms; big waves crashing on the shore; robot vehicles on mars. There is so much good that the material world entails--much of it for free!

Of course, the horrors tend to be free too. No down-payments are required for cancer, arthritis, heart disease, brain tumors, worms, flesh-eating streptococci, vehicle crashes (even 2 wheels foot powered ones), or the relentless drag of gravity.

From dust we have come, unto dust we shall return--the material reality of life. Nonetheless, we material beings spend a lot of time thinking about transcendence. It's a very compelling idea, seductive, lovely. Sometimes we find a teasing taste of transcendence. I am not sad that transcendence isn't on the menu. That we descendants of dust and ashes can imagine, even experience a moment of the sublime, is wonderful.

I'll rest my case there.

"Is the material world the most absolute form of reality?" What is absolute reality?

I'll cast my vote for a material world, composed of matter which turns out to be quite resourceful, considering that we material creatures are discussing stuff that isn't material. Mind arose from matter, and it doesn't transcend matter. But that's just my opinion.

We greatly desire a spirit (lots of possible definitions for spirit) to inhabit material, and it does inasmuch as we think it does. As far as I can tell, animated matter eventually becomes inanimate matter, and our thoughts disappear forever. Cruel world or merciful transience?

North Americans, anyway, referencing North and South America sometimes say "the Americas". Then there is the Organization of American States which concerns itself with Western Hemispheric affairs.

Many North Americans think that South America begins with Mexico. Not quite, but there is something culturally valid about that. But that's because the US swiped most of Mexico. They weren't doing much with it anyway, and God clearly intended the US map to look the way it does today. Manifest Destiny, and all.

America is derived from Amerigo Vespucci, an early explorer from Florence. Biography.com says that Vespucci "discovered present-day Rio de Janeiro and Rio de la Plata". That's amazing! He must have been using an early time machine. (joke). Anyway, we are all grateful that the two continents weren't named after his last name, where we'd be called Vespa or Pooch (informal for dog). North and South Pooch. Just not very dignified. United States of Vespa; there'd be all sorts of copyright infringement issues.

the received truth is that the Republican party is bad and the Democratic party is good, — FreeEmotion

You will be screwed by both the Republicans and Democrats; the difference is that the Republicans won't use vaseline.

Once upon a time I thought the United Kingdom was irrevocably one country (or realm). Now there have been ballots cast as to whether Scotland stays or leaves. Wales? Northern Ireland? Cornwall? Kent? Who's next?

No, I don't think the EU is a country because the Union is composed of sovereign states who maintain their own systems of national government; diplomacy; military policy; education; health care financing; status of religious organizations vis a vis the state--all while sharing a currency and allowing free travel in the Schengen Area.

Question: Do Europeans think of 'European' as a national status? Or are they Estonian Europeans, French Europeans, or Greek Europeans? This American doesn't think of anyone as "European" apart from their national status. But then, this American thinks of himself as Minnesotan as much as American. Probably young people in Europe will adopt a European identity first.

By the American Revolution, the English and Germans-speakers had had over a century to begin forming an identification that transcended their local colony, or their status as English (or whatever they were). Only 70 years after the nation was formally established, we found that in 1860 there were regions, cultural and economic interests that transcended national identity, resulting in succession. Regional differences persisted long after the forced reunification of the country (and have not entirely disappeared yet).

My guess is that Europe will need a century or two to build a European nation and identity. It would not be surprising if there were rough periods of transition.

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the cats".

They court the well off with a bad conscience crowd - and make them ashamed to be white, regardless of the consequences for the working class majority. — counterpunch

There are peculiar patterns in the press and in entertainment. The New York Times, the country's newspaper of record, frequently views events through a racial filter, pointing out, over and over again, that people who are not white are not getting an equal share of ... whatever it is. (If the world were coming to an end tomorrow, the NYT would say "World Coming to End: Women and minorities to be disproportionately affected") As if white men were never poor! Media elsewhere in the country are doing the same thing more often. There was a story about how minority children are not learning how to ice skate as often as white children. Gee, Maybe a lot of minority families come from places where ice skating just isn't a thing?

Another thing, many advertisements feature bi-racial and mixed race children in ads. Nothing wrong with either one, but bi-racial couples and their children just aren't that common. Grey's Anatomy, a medical drama that has has been on for the last 15 years, has placed an increasing number of black characters in the story, as well as many B/W mixed race couples. Seattle is 66% white and 7% black. There aren't enough blacks in Seattle, even if every black person was in a B/W couple. for that many mixed race couples. The producers have apparently decided to showcase multi-race relationships as a way to be hip, with it, progressive. I like the show and I like the leading black characters who are very all portrayed by very good actors (at least for television).

A lot of characters in American film and television are depicted as very well off, well educated, upper-middle class, even upper class. The popular entertaining media doesn't find working class characters all that interesting, and when working class characters appear in comedies they are usually presented as clowns or morons, especially if they are male.

I'm from the North of England... — counterpunch

The UK seems to have clearer class lines than the US, but what happened in the north of England has happened here too. The American labor movement didn't die from natural causes--it was murdered. Killed off by the same economic interests that shafted the coal workers where you grew up. It's a disgusting story of corporate and political powers combining to suppress the working class. In this country the Democrats and Republicans found common ground in class warfare (like a Democratic governor in my liberal state who sent in the National Guard to help break the Hormel meat packing strike 40 years ago).

The technology exists. — counterpunch

Yes, of course. It's all more or less on the shelf. What is NOT on the shelf is the industrial structure: the financial capital; the corporate commitment (of suppliers, drillers, pipe and boiler makers, etc.); the thousands of employees with the necessary skill-sets in geo-thermal; the large electrolysis plants and distribution systems; the adaptation of plants to turn generators with hydrogen, and so on.

High speed trains are on-the-shelf tech too, but the US has steadfastly refused to build the new roadbeds and buy the equipment. The big railroads can run their freight trains remotely (nobody on board), so it isn't as if they are technophobes. It's just bad national policy. Bad national policy could prevent geo-thermal too.

liquified fuel — counterpunch

Hydrogen becomes a liquid at −253°C (−423°F)--getting close to absolute zero. It takes 30% of the energy value in H to liquify it. Well, energy production and distribution always costs a share of the energy in coal, gas, electricity, wind, solar, or whatever. Maybe we have to do more research on that liquifying process.

But what about the people who print newspapers, build cars, manufacture appliances, grow cotton and knit cardigans or whatever. — counterpunch

Well, it isn't reluctant consumers that are costing most of the jobs, these days. It's automation in its various forms. One of the solutions to automation is to take the profits of automated factories and support displaced workers at a reasonably comfortable level of income. Automation and unlimited pollution free energy should make it possible for displaced workers to have good lives--not just living on welfare, but being supported while they find new ways to manage their lives.

Or, just as easily, we can de-automate factories to produce more jobs. God didn't order us to automate everything, after all.

do you ask two ... (equally biased) lawyers — Isaac

My assumption is that the police behaved wrongfully, but where would one find unbiased lawyers? Whether they are prosecuting or defense attorneys, there are going to be biases. Can one set up double-blind medical type experiments in criminal cases? It would seem not.

Under the highly politicised circumstances created by BLM — counterpunch

BLM further politicized the already-politically charged issue of police-black community conflict. BLM only intensified it. I'm not a supporter or follower of BLM, but in all fairness, bad police-community interactions go back a long time. What is new is live coverage of police operations by way of cell-phone video. I have to assume the 4 cops in Floyd's arrest/death knew that there were critical witnesses on hand and that their actions either were, or could be, video recorded. Yet they persisted in using (what seems like excessive force) to complete the arrest and transport of GF.

Bad gay community-police conflict developed in Minneapolis in the early 1980s. The conflict was ignited by a relatively small number of cops--members of the vice squad and downtown street patrols. There was little conflict between gays and police most of the time. A minority of cops cause the majority of conflict with the black community too.

Bad actors in any field can give the whole a bad reputation.

Recently, I showed that the subjectivist, post modernist, anti-truth position of the left is false, with numerous examples, in an argument peppered with literary and philosophical references, and ran into an ideologically indoctrinated brick wall of direct contradiction. This inability and/or unwillingness to learn plunged me into a sudden and deep depression, for - if humankind cannot learn, cannot correct this mistake, we are doomed. — counterpunch

As some sort of leftist, I agree with you that a lot of the subjectivist, post-modernist, anti-truth, political correctness..." of the left is wrong, or sometimes not even wrong. Some of it is just plain nonsensical. I don't socialize much with people, especially the younger (or youngish) adults among whom there seems to be a lot of "leftist affect" (meaning, they sound like leftists but most likely are not). The literary theory of post-modernism is the worst slop I have encountered in a life-time of reading.

As time passes, it seems like the terms "left" and "right" have become less meaningful. It isn't that the continuum of opinion doesn't exist, but that the labels have been emptied of meaning by overuse. Lots of words have been ruined by excessive use and abuse.

Magna Magma: The only problem your idea of capturing energy from magma has is that the industry required for economic viability hasn't appeared. In 1945 there was no industry in place for atomic energy. It got built, but it took decades. The same goes for steam-generated coal powered electricity. The industry had to be developed over decades. There are hot-spots here and there where geo-thermal heat is close, or relatively close to the surface. Iceland; Yellowstone; various places on the pacific rim, etc. Many other areas sit on thick cold rock, and we'd have to bore much deeper.

A couple of years ago a long-time TPF member proposed floating large arrays of solar cells off shore. Sounded like a non-starter at the time, but I have since read of arrays that have been built, are floating, and producing electricity.

All the approaches that can be done; should be done, including the magna magma option.

You are not the only one running into brick walls. As a sometimes-socialist-agitator I can appreciate your frustration with brick walls. The very word "socialist" is a thought stopper for many people, a no-go zone.

About sustainability and consumption: What environmentalists mean by "reduced consumption" isn't a fixed standardized thing. My own experience is that I can consume less 'stuff' without the slightest reduction in my standard of living. Example: reading books and newspaper in digital form rather than paper. Drinking tap water instead of bottled water (which is often the same water one gets out of a tap). Not replacing clothing that is in very good condition. Keeping appliances until they fail. I use mass transit because I do not drive, and for many purposes it works. For some purposes it fails or doesn't exist anymore. Granted, it doesn't work for many people because of past huge investments in auto transportation coupled with long-term DISinvestment in mass transit.

Given the huge quantity of CO2 that transportation contributes to the atmosphere, that is one of the areas where 'green' will mean changes that will feel like loss to maybe a billion drivers.

You answered your own question. BUT...

If you want to compare communism, fascism, and capitalism, you should do it in the same time-frame. Soviet communism failed and fell in 1991. Fascism failed and fell in 1945. Capitalism (which is part of the hybrid mix) is still going strong, as far as I can tell. In the period 1930 to 1940, capitalism was in the middle of a severe depression. Fascism was robust, and popular (more or less). The still new communism (just 13 years old in 1930) was functioning reasonably well. It is a bit difficult to tell how well the US economy would have recovered without WWII.

Al three ruling systems employed plenty of brutality and deception to keep their populations under control and maintain the flow of wealth into the ruling classes. The consumer culture (more limited than today) was still relatively new in the 1920s and 1930s. "cheap and tasty fast food, 150 TV channels with movies on demand, shopping, shopping, shopping for the ladies, and (mostly) free sports and internet porn for the gentlemen" hadn't happened yet. No television yet, just radio--and that was AM, not FM. Home appliances were expensive and only slowly making their way into the working class (which is most of the population). Phonographs were still 78 rpm. Pornography was flatly illegal and difficult to obtain. Alcohol was still illegal up to 1933. The first feature movie with sound appeared in 1927.

WWII was a watershed. The British Empire, and Britain as a major power, came to an end. France, Germany, Italy, and Japan were were shadows of their former selves after WWII. Fascism had been defeated at great cost, especially to the Axis and Axis-occupied nations. The US came out of the war as the top dog, economically and militarily. We ran the world for decades, which is one of the reasons for the hot consumer culture. Domestic consumption was, and is, a growing portion of GDP.

So, what might the lessons of the 20th century be?

The myth is that the government should supply safety nets, and not the community. Nanny-statists prefer government safety nets because it absolves them from having to create and sustain their own. — NOS4A2

That the government should supply safety nets, and people not have to depend on private charity, is not a myth--it's a collective choice. The states with the highest standards of living, best education and health outcomes, the best housing, and so forth are "nanny states'. They are at the top of the distribution because "the community" and "the state" overlap, and the common good is tended.

We could go back to 1930 when unemployment and destitution were handled at the local, city level. The amount of aid a city could offer was pitifully small. Imagine how bad Covid-19 would be without federal nanny state action.

Non-profits can and do provide a lot of social services--much of the safety net. The size of the budgets required for Lutheran Social Services or Catholic Charities et al to be effective could not possibly be met with contributions from churches and individuals. A lot of their money comes from government contracts (the nanny state one step removed). Given your loathing of the nanny state, I suppose you are out there haranguing the rich to cough up enough money to keep the private safety net operating.

As for this - I'd be more forceful. It's not just a lack - as though something just so happens to be missing. There is very much an active campaign, pursued at the level of policy and public consciousness, to maintain those lack of safety nets and economic opportunity. It's not a passive lack. There are forces that actively work against such things. The problem is political before it is economic. — StreetlightX

The active campaign has been so pervasive and long lasting that it is "invisible". There has been a recent spate of books on housing like EVICTED and THE COLOR OF LAW which reveal how the campaign has worked. The myths (a.k.a. lies) of the ruling class are so deeply embedded, it is practically impossible for many people to question them. So, of course it's your fault if you are broke and living in a ratty building, poorly employed or on welfare, or living under a bridge. You just didn't try hard enough, you lazy worthless son of a bitch.

I used to teach at university and, yes, we have our means. — Baden

On various occasions I have done searches for various phrases of at least several words, and it is surprising how often a particular phrase is--not totally but remarkably--unique. Take for example, "a particular phrase is--not totally but remarkably--unique" has not appeared in this or (probably) the previous PF. In all the world, it may not have appeared more than a few times.

So students who plagiarize experts in very well-plowed fields really don't stand a chance, sometimes even without bots.

Of course I could have avoided doing wrong. I wasn't under some sort of strange compulsion. I understand that many people commit acts that some (or many) other people consider wrong. Gay sex, for example. Smoking weed. Speeding (really fast on a freeway). Buying stolen goods. Etc. What I did I knew and felt to be wrong, but the opportunity was there so I took it. Were the same situation to arise, I'd probably do it again.

My bad acts have been very small potatoes, but people also commit major crimes like espionage--just for the money, art fraud, grand theft, assault, and so forth that they know others and themselves think are wrong. People even commit at least 'lukewarm to cool-blooded' murders, something different than a hot passionate murder or cold-blooded murder for hire.

I'll grant you, though, that many 'wrong acts' are what you call "quotational sense of 'wrong'". Sexual acts certainly fall into this category when people are swept off their feet by someone else and end up in bed with them, even though they are married or in a committed relationship. That's happened to me, and I didn't count that as deliberate wrong doing. My dick was making the decision, so to speak--a hard cock has no morals.

I agree, the likelihood is minimal.

A few hundred years for recovery is plausible. I think it would depend on how much literacy were retained, and whether enough print and analog material survived (digitally stored information will be lost forever, most likely). A substantial group of readers with access to basic scientific, technology, and general knowledge books would make recovery much more likely. Knowledge won't make oil gush out of shallow wells, but it could direct efforts to recover, even with substantial handicaps.

A number of environmentally oriented writers (like James Howard Kunstler and others) have pointed out how critical petroleum, in its many refined forms, is to the existence of the present (1850 - 2021) technological society. There is nothing as convenient and energy dense as gasoline; there is no easy method of replacing the many specialized plastics we depend on; there is no similar, inexpensive, and long-lasting lubricant as oil.

We have probably passed peak oil, which means that in the long run (next 150 years) oil will get steadily more expensive and more difficult to obtain until we can't.

The break of only a few generations of cultural reproduction which an environmental catastrophe could cause would affect everything, pretty much all negatively. The culture would regress back to "a world made by hand" as Kunstler illustrated in his several novels under that title. Gone would be most medicines, most medical equipment, medical training, and so on. The electrical production system would be very, very hard for people, without lots of trained engineers, to restart. Agriculture would continue on, but on an 19th century basis, IF we were lucky.

We probably would not be able to reknit an unraveled civilization.

nobody knowingly does bad things — Pfhorrest

Really? That seems like an extraordinarily optimistic view of human behavior.

I've knowingly done bad things as an adult. I knew, as I contemplated the act, that it was definitely bad, and I did it anyway--sometimes more than once.

Evil is reducible to ignorance? Well, sure -- sometimes. For instance, a person might have engaged in so little self-examination that they are unaware (ignorant) of their motivations. We can't always project far enough into the future to assess consequences. But sometimes we are clueless.

Energy company executives (like Exxon) buried early evidence of the consequences of unlimited petroleum production. I doubt that they were clueless about either the environmental or moral consequences of that act.

I think one motivation is also as a form of "philosophical self-help" — baker

That is certainly the case. Over the years quite a few participants have laid out personal problems, sometimes ethical dilemmas, and identifiable mental illnesses for "the group" to discuss. Serious cases (there were some) were strongly urged to seek psychiatric help. Depressed people, who number in the millions, are frequent philosoph-therapeutic 'patients'. Quite a few of our long-term regulars have experienced depression. My own experience with depression has been that IF one can change one's life circumstances to suit one's preferences, depression can get a whole lot better. Unfortunately, a lot of life circumstances just aren't easily changed. Bad jobs, difficult relationships, long commutes, loneliness, rage, boredom, anxiety, debt, and a dozen other conditions can't just be waved away. IF ONLY...

And sometimes events intervene and problems get resolved and life gets better--much to our surprise.

Hey, Gus and Jack: I'm pretty pessimistic about our collective future. Cultural collapse, dark age, environmental catastrophe -- similar consequences. End of humanity? Probably not, but far fewer of us, and if the collapse is pervasive and lasts long enough for critical expertise to be lost, then the way forward will be long and difficult.

Gus: I'd never underesteem the Roman Empire. The end of the Roman Empire significantly degraded (even if it did not totally end) trade in food, metals, fabric, people, and knowledge. Technology was lost (dome and aqueduct building, organizational practices, scientific and technological knowledge such as it was, and so on. There were extensive and long term consequences from that loss. What were integrated parts of the western empire became islands. The priorities, biases, and intentions of the Roman Church also had extensive long-lasting consequences for Western Culture.

The people alive in MMXXI perhaps experience some of the same disquiet, unease, confusion, and anxiety people did in CDL Rome. "Things are falling apart; the center is not holding." The best seem to lack passionate conviction, and the worst have Twitter accounts which they use with a vengeance.

Our dark age will be the result of an inability to materially sustain our culture, decayed or not. I predict a "dark age" ahead, but "extremism, polarity, division, cultural and/or moral decay" and so on will be the result of environmental collapse, not the cause.

You know that many historians have stopped using the term "dark age" because it just wasn't that dark. Certainly, the empire was over; the benefits of empire began to disappear, but resilient people were busy with their lives, and were (advertently and accidentally) developing new culture. True, the Roman establishment in Britain decamped, but that doesn't mean that the newly arrived Angles and Saxons were in a depressed funk about it.