But your opinion is still here is it not? Very much in print and in its full 'alternate' majesty. Do you notice any deletions? Nothing of alternate opinion has been lost just by you ceasing to repeat it. — Isaac

My opinion is not explored, because it is not understood - even if it is understood, I am faced with a constant barrage of incomprehension, misinterpretation, and abuse. These subjects are hard enough as it is. Do you imagine they haven't taken a toll? So to be attacked, mob handed, on the theme of mental competence is just too much. Every post for the last few pages has been met with aspersions insanity, and this has gone too far. A remark here or there is one thing. Developing a theme and inviting friends to join in is another. So, I'm outa here - and I'll leave you with this. If you are not aiming to transcend limits to resources you are aiming to fail. Best of luck!

Then like everywhere else on the net - you left wing bullies have driven out alternate opinion, and the kicker is that your idea of sustainability really is a pipe dream. On your head be it.

This is off-side. Read back on this thread, and you've attacked my intelligence, sanity, called me obsessive, and called me ignorant - over and over, page after page - and I'm asking you to stop it.

When I click on the notification, and find some shitty one liner reply to a post I poured heart and soul into - it negatively effects my emotional state. It's not a comment here or there, it's repeated abuse from a mob of bullies.

100 days until COP 26 - and I'd rather withdraw from this forum than place my argument in a prominent spot, with this kind of vicious ad hominem abuse going on. I'm not willing to tolerate this - so knock it off or I'm gone.

I see what the problem is. — Benkei

You don't, because...

You don't know what communism is. — Benkei

...you always assume some sort of deficit on my part rather than assume I have reasons to say what I'm saying!

If that's your go to response, and based on this thread - it very much is, then I'm outa here for while!

Seeya later!

quantum vacuum fluctuation engine — Benkei

It's not a source of energy. It's a means to produce thrust without propellant.

"According to the team, the electromagnetic drive, or EmDrive, converts electricity into thrust simply by bouncing around microwaves in a closed cavity. In theory, such a lightweight engine could one day send a spacecraft to Mars in just 70 days."

It is still necessary to produce the electricity; and almost certainly, the whole things is less thermodynamically efficient than a steam train. i.e. costs of lot of energy, to produce a tiny amount of thrust. Probably in the region of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt of energy! It's great for space travel. Mini nuke generators can produce plenty of energy, spent through such an engine - you can have thrust without lugging around tons of propellant. That's a huge advantage, but it's not a source of energy, and not relevant to solving climate change.

It's funny to see how you consider aspects, such as shareholders and capital rates of return, as inherent to capitalism. They're not. They're fictions introduced by law. Earliest corporations only got limited liability for capital providers because they invested in something worthwhile to the public that they would benefit from themselves (for instance merchants building a bridge increasing commerce). — Benkei

Okay, but the nature of capitalism has changed fundamentally, since around 1900 - when they introduced things like pensions and unemployment insurance, while at the same time industry began to produce consumer goods. If you don't like it, blame Marx' critique - to which capitalism responded by creating an interest in people's general prosperity, and we now have consumer capitalism. Just off the top of my head, it would seem to me consumer capitalism multiplies exponentially the liabilities to which shareholders might become subject through investment; so there's no valid inference from the fact LLC's only existed for occasional and philanthropic purposes way back when.

It makes me wonder what you do for a living if you have such little historic and economic knowledge. — Benkei

Corporate law is a huge and complex area of specialist knowledge; why would I happen know about it? If you know something interesting about it; more interesting than the fact that at some unspecified time in the past there were no LLC's - do share, but don't hold my feet to your fire!

I didn't raise economics to discuss whether my economic position is correct, merely to point out your representation of my position was false. — Benkei

This position?

Finally, "sustaining capitalism" is an utter shit goal. It is and always has been about people, not some system or ideology. People first, system second. Whatever system creates the best world for people is the one we should implement. It isn't capitalism despite the many good things it has brought when the excesses it's been causing since the 90s wasn't a problem yet. — Benkei

Or when you said:

I'm against the current type of capitalism, I think it's implementation, especially when the corporation was introduced, has and will lead to untold misery. I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei

Or, was it when you said:

The "goodwill" of a company is generated by its labourers so I believe one solution could be (if we must have corporations) is to introduce a dynamic equity system where labourers, over time, become majority shareholders as opposed to those providing capital. — Benkei

Because these are three different positions. Or one lying ass commie!

p.s. Where's Aldo?

Think I'll repeat my contribution, just to get it out from under the magma obsession.

When faced with a complex problem the rational thing to do is to try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation.

Let a thousand flowers bloom. — Banno

Great. Let's leave it there. Thanks for the discussion.

See if you can list them for yourself. Consider it a first step towards your redemption. Be your own devil's advocate. — Banno

Okay. We could capture an asteroid with a high copper content, and build a huge copper ring in space, and set it spinning within the magnetic fields of the earth to generate current. It's an idea I came up with in relation to the perpetual motion machine challenge - which, arguably, I won. Point being, if you think I haven't considered it, you're probably wrong, and after all due consideration I think magma - hydrogen is the best bet.

Again, my point is that there are other solutions, that may work as well or better, and yet you obsess with one.

And when this is pointed out, you have doubled down.

You don't see this as a problem. I'm worried for you. — Banno

I'm touched, and curious as to what these other solutions are, that may work as well or better!

...

True but irrelevant. — Banno

It's entirely relevant. Asia will build more coal fired power stations to support growing prosperity, but is unlikely to apply the technology to produce clean energy. Large parts of the planet simply can't afford it. Developing magma energy as a global good would allow us to attack climate change directly, and sequester carbon - building capacity to take over from fossil fuels eventually.

A coal fired power station does not require a huge amount of modification to burn hydrogen instead. Energy is transmitted using the existing energy infrastructure. So - in theory, magma energy would allow for the largest populations on earth, India and China, and poorer parts of the world to "go green" without massive and costly infrastructure changes. If then you said - Australia has loads of sunshine, then yeah, sure! As you prefer.

What is tedious in the extreme is your supposition that one solution will solve the issue. — Banno

Not immediately, but there's more than adequate energy to meet and exceed current global energy demand in the molten interior of the earth. It would take time to develop that capacity, but eventually I expect it would succeed fossil fuels, and is sufficient to be the sole source of energy we rely on. That would be the ultimate aim, but I don't envisage it being developed and employed in the way you suggest.

I haven't talked about this often, because it's way beyond my pay grade, but the potential of the technology - the sheer volume of energy that could ultimately become available, allows for considerable discretion going forward, in how soon we'd need to replace critical and expensive parts of the infrastructure. There would be the potential to offset carbon produced today, in the capacity to sequester it tomorrow - in turn suggesting this technology be developed a global good, and when it does eventually enter the market, perhaps a sectoral approach might be possible, where high energy industries are transferred to renewable energy. There's no need to compete directly with fossil fuels right away, and thus - it's false charge you lay at my feet. What's tedious is your refusal to understand.

When faced with a complex problem, should one just decide that because a solution works in one place it will work everywhere, or should one try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation? We have abundant sunshine in Australia, but the magma is unusually deep because of the age of the continent. Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism. Basically, it's not rational. — Banno

Australia exports about 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia - so yeah, you've got lot's of sunshine you! You've got so much sunshine you're bursting into flames!

Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism. Basically, it's not rational. — Banno

It's not an assumption; it's a consequence of the nature of the threat we face, and what I believe is the only adequate solution. Magma energy can solve climate change, and thereafter, could succeed fossil fuels, and ultimately, we could transcend limits to resources. It's that possibility that makes it the right answer for everyone, eventually - not because 'one size fits all' is my rule of thumb!

No that's right, and we have no obligation to take your word on it. — ChatteringMonkey

You claim without evidence that solar power can solve climate change; and you demand I produce evidence to prove it cannot? Isn't it your obligation to prove it can? I'm not interested in solar. I'm interested in magma. You're interested in solar? You prove it! And while you're at it, can you explain to the people of Gwent why they ought to pave over 'the welsh amazon' with solar panels!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-57179848

No idea why he's so hung up on geothermal energy specifically. — ChatteringMonkey

Really? After everything I've said you've still no idea why magma? That's an extraordinary admission.

We need sources that back up these claims Counterpunch... just stating it won't do. — ChatteringMonkey

I have no obligation to provide you with sources on demand if you still don't know why magma; you're not taking anything in.

And where one technology (especially an unknown and unproven one) is given the grace of time to develop and improve, I would think the same courtesy should be extended to others; and those which are extant would be favored, I would think. It's my understanding windmills just keep getting better. Compare what they started with to where they are today. Solar panels, likewise. I've even heard you could make roads out of and drive on them. — James Riley

The potential is not there. Wind and solar cannot produce enough energy, cannot produce energy reliably, don't last long enough, cost a fortune to build, and are impossible to recycle. If all those problems were solved, we'd still need an unfeasibly large number of solar panels and/or windmills to meet current energy demand. We will always be behind the eight ball on climate change if we apply inadequate technologies to merely mitigate emissions. Magma energy, by contrast - has the potential to defeat climate change and transcend limits to resources.

I was talking about solar energy. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, sorry! You mean like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

or like this:

Gwent Levels: 'Wales' Amazon in danger from energy developments'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57174252

???

If you have a sources for these claims, I'm willing to look at it... if not, I disagree. — ChatteringMonkey

East Anglia One is a wind farm offshore of the British Isles. It's 102 turbines produce enough energy to power 600,000 homes. There are approximately 35 million households in the UK. By dint of a back of the envelope calculation; saying nothing of the governments intention to phase out petrol powered cars in favour of electric vehicles from 2030, you'd need roughly 10,000 windmills to meet current energy demand. Maybe 15,000 once you source transport energy from the national grid. The 102 turbines cost about £2.5bn to build, which is to say, 15,000 windmills would cost.... oh no, my calculator has run out of zeros! So that's not going to happen, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Anglia_Array

I weighed in because you misunderstood Pikkety, which... you know, seems fair game on a philosophy forum.

And it's not only about inequality of wealth, even if you are not left politically, the system isn't working properly, by it's own standards.

Personally I don't think limiting energy is needed to solve this problem long term because renewables, solar in the first place, will be cheap enough to provide the energy... short term it could certainly help to be more energy-conserving though. — ChatteringMonkey

Wind and solar cannot possibly solve climate change. These technologies will never even meet current energy demand, less yet provide surplus energy to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. They'll cost a fortune to build, produce a trickle of energy, only slightly reduce total GHG emissions, and be impossible to recycle in 25 years time, when they'd need replacing at similar cost.

The technology is simply not adequate to the problem, and consequently, other forms of sacrifice will be necessary - an endless series of government interventions in the market and society to tax this and stop that, in hopes of eeking out our existence!

There is a viable source of energy, and it's massive beyond imagining. It's constant high grade clean energy, and there's a limitless amount of it. Harnessing this energy we would not need to impose upon people and business to secure a sustainable future. It's the difference between stopping flying and inventing a hydrogen powered jet engine. And you say let's stop flying? Then I think you're nuts!

You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm no left ideologue. I'm just saying the system is broken right now, however you want to look at it. — ChatteringMonkey

You weigh in by telling me I misunderstand Pikkety - then forgive me for considering you an advocate of his position, and tailoring my remarks accordingly. I cannot comprehend how inequality of wealth is relevant to my proposal - even if I thought it were a problem, which I don't. I'm happy to see someone doing well for themselves - good on 'em! The question is about approaches to climate change, and frankly, the left wing limits to resources approach is factually wrong and requires great suffering to an intangible ideal - and the reply is, "Ah yes, but - if we sustain capitalism, some people will get very rich!" How awful!

Capitalism has personal traits now -- like knowledge and skill. — Xtrix

I love how there's nothing you cannot misunderstand somehow!

You missed Pikkety's point. The point is that those with capital will only get richer, while others who do produce get poorer in relation. — ChatteringMonkey

I shouldn't have been required to answer to Pikkety's point. I'm not advocating capitalism per se; capitalism is the prevailing economic system, and imperfect as it may be, has the knowledge, skills and resources to apply the technology to prevent an imminent catastrophe. Your determination to put ideology ahead of the practicalities of sustainability is absurd. You would use sustainability as an anti-capitalist battering ram, to force your ideology on the majority. Pikkety should be required to answer to my proof that's unnecessary.

You missed Pikkety's point. The point is that those with capital will only get richer, while others who do produce get poorer in relation. — ChatteringMonkey

So, not real poverty then - but new all times highs in left wing envy? So what? The rich pay most of the taxes. Do you suppose they think that's fair? We can all complain about how unfair everything is, but it's just not about that for me. It's about finding a way to apply the technology necessary to sustainability - and I don't see that happening by making an enemy of government, wealth and industry. I want a solution that suits them - and counter intuitive blue sky thinking though it may be, magma energy ticks a lot of boxes.

No, it isn’t. Assert it a million times— doesn’t make it so.

Science grew up with capitalism, and has been appropriated for profit, usually at the expense of the public (eg computers, the internet, pharmaceuticals, etc).

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about— and I have no interest in explaining it to you. You wouldn’t hear it anyway. Just be happy with your delusions of solving the world’s problem by fiat. — Xtrix

Thanks again for your abusive, ill informed, half assed, hateful opinion!

Scientific method emerged 100 years before the industrial revolution; and in effect, was condemned as heretical. It was this religiously motivated philosophical position that rendered science a mere tool to be used by capitalism and government.

Science is not just a tool, but is also an understanding of reality to contrast with an ideological description of the world. To maintain that religious, political and economic ideological description of the world - a scientific understanding of reality was ignored, downplayed, undermined - over hundreds of years. That's the context within which capitalism operates, and it's a mistake. You want to blame capitalism, and I'm not suggesting capitalism is entirely innocent, but it's not the problem.

Having established that - then we return to the real world, where things are not ideal, but nonetheless, thinking in these terms creates a rationale to apply the technologies necessary to sustainability - and in that course, magma energy is the most likely adequate technological solution - a solution that sovereign nations states in economic and political competition, would not naturally arrive at. But it's there, and our best bet, because as a matter of fact - resources are function of the energy available to create them. Ask a physicist!

I see you like to read extra things into what I say. Let me clarify. I'm against the current type of capitalism, I think it's implementation, especially when the corporation was introduced, has and will lead to untold misery. I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei

Reasonable enough concerns; entirely unreasonable solution.

The "goodwill" of a company is generated by its labourers so I believe one solution could be (if we must have corporations) is to introduce a dynamic equity system where labourers, over time, become majority shareholders as opposed to those providing capital. And that's logical because if labourers wouldn't add more value than capital, shareholders would be losing money. But hey, yeah, I totally played into your unnecessary juxtaposition! — Benkei

It's basically the centre-piece of Corbyn's 2019 manifesto. It's been offered to, and rejected by the British public. Just as Kinnock's left of Clause IV platform saw him rejected by the British public three times. And obversely, Blair dropped Clause IV, and won three elections for Labour. When will the left learn they are there to represent working class people's interests, not prosecute their own ideological prejudices?

Just on the surface of things, why would someone start a business, risk their capital, invest their time, effort and ingenuity - knowing they are required to give that company away to factory floor workers whose sole contribution is their labour power? Business could not operate under those conditions; and then you really would see suffering. Immediately there'd be capital flight, mass unemployment, the value of the currency would tank, while interests rates would skyrocket.

So the French revolution was a bad thing? Your posts involve way too many absolutes, too many assumptions and too little examination. — Benkei

Arguably, the revolution was a disaster for France that still echoes today in the all too frequent strikes, often turning into riots. A romantic desire to tear down the system, as if to birth the next republic - encourages social protest to become disproportionate.

That capitalism is the prevailing economic system is no argument for it to remain so. Where have I promoted communism? I have always maintained Marx' Kapital is one of the better critiques of capitalism. Thanks to Piketty, we have an additional one. — Benkei

Let's take Pikkety's critique, and respond, so what?

"The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future."

Wealth inequality is good. Inequality means that people have been able to develop their talents, and use those talents to create social good, for a profit. Talent is unequally distributed by nature. Equality of opportunity, sure - I'm with Rawl's on equality of opportunity, but denying people the right to profit from their talents, for sake of equality of outcome with the talentless, is profoundly unjust and dysfunctional.

So would zero-point energy. This doesn't mean it's a viable option. For someone banging on about science, you sure like to spend very little time on the actual science of the problem. — Benkei

That's crazy; zero point energy is not a form of energy outside of cartoons. It refers to the lowest energy state of a quantum system - even at absolute zero, there's a residual energy. That's zero point energy. Magma is a real source of huge amounts of clean energy we need, like yesterday. It cannot be developed quite that quickly, but doesn't have to be - assuming ultimately, it would be more than adequate, we can redress the damage in due course.

Those questions you need to answer are still unanswered. Until then we'll go with the science that actually is clear, proven to work and feasible, such as wind, water and photo-voltaic renewable energy. — Benkei

Your unanswered questions are not due to a lack of scientific rigour, but that they could only be answered after conducting physical research. I'm not currently in a position to hire those specialist skills. Give me the money, and I'll start making calls - and get you your answers. But until then, it's just not possible to answer the questions you've asked. You can keep implying this constitutes some sort of deficiency on my part, but I can only do so much - and I'm doing what I'm qualified to do, and that is to speak on the philosophy, political theory and economics of the whole thing.

Wind and solar are sub-optimal at best. They will never meet our energy needs - and so will entrench fossil fuel dependence. They are inconstant sources of energy, and so that energy must be stored - meaning you don't just need to build windmills and solar panels, but energy storage facilities - and still maintain a fossil fuel generating capacity. Windmills cost about £250m each to manufacture and erect, and last around 25 years, after which time they need replacing at similar cost. And all this to barely take the edge off carbon emissions.

In order to make wind and solar make sense - living standards will have to fall dramatically. This means old people afraid to put the fire on in winter; the price of food, travel, everything that costs energy costing much more - to reduce demand, to address climate change. It's cruel and unnecessary, and leads nowhere good. We need to apply technologies that produce massive amounts of clean energy to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability in our favour.

It's not either capitalism or communism — Benkei

Finally, "sustaining capitalism" is an utter shit goal. — Benkei

I think that's called "the old bait and switch!"

The aim isn't sustaining capitalism per se. The aim is to secure a sustainable future with minimal disruption; and that's because, disruption causes people to suffer.

It is and always has been about people, not some system or ideology. — Benkei

Capitalism is the prevailing economic system the world over, and if you cared about people and sustainability - more than you do about promoting communism, you'd accept that - and seek minimally disruptive solutions to climate change.

I also don't share your optimism where it concerns science. — Benkei

Optimism is irrelevant. It's a matter of fact that the earth is a big ball of molten rock, containing a truly massive amount of energy - more than adequate to meet and exceed current global energy demand, into the indefinite future.

Capitalism is an ideology. It’s the religious belief in the free market and the primacy of profit— all else is externality. Capitalism doesn’t exclude science at all. — Xtrix

The length of the post necessary to explain your confusion would be prohibitive. I might have induced myself to write it for a willing audience, but I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to read it. I'll keep it short. You say what you see, and so insist you're right, but you don't get to the root of the problem - and that's why you cannot solve it.

The root cause of climate change is our mistaken relation to science; a disregard for science as an understanding of reality, externalised by religious and political conceptions of reality. i.e. the context within which capitalism operates. We need to look beyond the ideological battlements, to a scientific understanding of reality for a solution; i.e. magma energy - and that so, capitalism would be sustainable.

I know you belieeeve in limits to growth, but scientifically speaking, it's not a valid theory. It's a physical fact that resources are a function of the energy available to create them. We would need to look beyond our traditional ideological worldviews to apply the technology to harness that energy, but in scientific terms, the energy we need is there - and technologically, it seems quite possible to harness it.

Surely, you would concede, that's a better approach to sustainability than a slow strangling to death of capitalist enterprise, and a low energy, poverty stricken, authoritarian green commie hell forever after. We must transcend limits to growth.

It is a minimally disruptive approach to do this in support of capitalism; as capitalism is the prevailing economic paradigm, and so much nicer than slavery - to have some degree of personal and political freedom.
— counterpunch

False dichotomy. — Benkei

I don't see it. A left wing approach to sustainability, based on Malthusian pessimism and limits to resources, dates back to an era when communism was still a thing. Communism is no longer a thing; yet a left wing approach to sustainability remains violently anti-capitalist.

Ostensibly concerned with sustainability, the left haven't even considered whether capitalism might be sustained, because of their political interest in promoting communism. In the 1960's and 70's maybe, that was a justifiable political position, but it's not anymore.

Perhaps I'm being slightly bullish in drawing a direct parallel between communism and slavery, but communism does not allow for the kind of personal and political freedom capitalism allows for. And it would clearly be less disruptive to sustain capitalism, than force a failed economic ideology on capitalist societies under the guise of sustainability.

Scientifically and technologically, I believe it's possible to sustain capitalism. There's limitless amounts of clean energy available in the molten interior of the earth, we could use to meet all our energy needs plus capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, and recycle. This would internalise the externalities of capitalism without internalising them to the economy.

Capitalism is the reason for climate change. That’s a fact. Holding your hand to help you understand it isn’t of interest to me. When a system values short term profits, and anything else is considered an externality, this is what happens. Seen clearly in the Exxon memos. Take your capitalist/magma wet dreams elsewhere. — Xtrix

The root cause of climate change is the ideological context within which capitalism operates; the overlapping religious, political and economic ideological architectures of societies, that for all sorts of historical and philosophical reasons, undervalue and exclude science as an understanding of reality.

When politics makes a law; i.e. no dumping waste in the river, and that law applies equally to everyone, there's no economic incentive to dump waste in the river. The cost of disposing of waste properly is absorbed into the costs of production and passed on to the consumer in similar proportion by all producers, so there's no competitive disadvantage. However if there's no law on dumping waste in the river, and my main competitor dumps their waste in the river, I could not unilaterally stop doing so - even if I wanted to.

So you see, it's not capitalism per se, but the ideological context within which capitalism operates. And thus, it's necessary to look beyond those ideological borders to a scientific understanding of reality, to justify the application of technology necessary to solve climate change. Queue magma energy wet dream sequence!

Yes, it is. Short term profits, all else is externalities. That’s the only reason we’re here right now. You’re not a philosopher, and you have no solutions — because you don’t know what you’re talking about. — Xtrix

I know what I'm talking about. I accept no responsibility for the fact you still don't know what I'm talking about. I've been sufficiently clear that someone who wanted to understand my perspective, could do. Or is it that you understand it, but don't want to accept it; unable counter it - hence the abuse?

I'm sure you must be emotionally invested in making capitalism the villain of the piece, but it's just not true. It's a shallow, kneejerk, left wing analysis - proven wrong by the capitalist defeat of the Malthusian threat. Climate change is essentially the same problem; and similarly, capitalism can be sustained if politics can find an agreeable rationale for the application of the right technologies; limits to resources can be transcended via the application of technology.

Magma energy could be developed as a global public good; and used initially to sequester carbon, desalinate and irrigate - so to mitigate and adapt to climate change while building the capacity to take over from fossil fuels. It is a minimally disruptive approach to do this in support of capitalism; as capitalism is the prevailing economic paradigm, and so much nicer than slavery - to have some degree of personal and political freedom. Also, magma energy as a global good sidesteps all sorts of direct conflicts of interest in this issue, geopolitical, politics and business, politics and the consumer, environment versus human interest, so I think it's pretty well crafted. Sad you cannot appreciate it.

That's because you're an embarrassingly simpleminded individual who is too busy with his own delusions to hear a word anyone else says. — Xtrix

Sorry, what's that?

Talk about delusions of grandeur. Leave the little crackpot to his illusions. — Xtrix

Yeah, that would be nice, thanks! You are dismissed!

Cringe-inducing. No self-awareness whatsoever. — Xtrix

Who you on about now?

Since capitalism is the cause of this mess, one would hope it's not only undermined but destroyed completely. — Xtrix

That's incorrect. Capitalism is not to blame. The root cause of climate change is the misapplication of technology, based in turn on a disregard for a scientific understanding of reality in favour of ideological worldviews, dating back to the trial of Galileo in 1634.

As a philosopher, I have the luxury of looking beyond our ideological borders - and that's where the solution lies, in an alternate reality in which ideally, the Church greeted Galileo with open arms - as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation. In this reality, science was pursued and integrated into politics and society on an ongoing basis, as an authoritative truth - over 400 years, and technology was applied with regard to a scientific understanding of reality.

Capitalism isn't a problem in this reality, thus capitalism isn't the fundamental nature of the problem. It's the ideological context within which capitalism operates. Capitalism could operate fine within a context of science based regulation - so long as everyone were prohibited from dumping their waste in the river, there would be no economic incentive for a race to the bottom, and given limitless clean energy, to power a logical series of technologies, no limit to resources.

I accept, that's not where we are, but thinking in these terms identifies the possibility, and given the scale and nature of the threat; an objective rationale for the application of the technologies necessary to survival is worth thinking about - if technologically speaking, it is possible to sustain capitalism, we should. I think it is. I'm over-reaching slightly on my knowledge of drilling technology, but there is sufficient energy in the interior of the earth.

There is an undeniable evidence that you exist. — Corvus

It's not undeniable though, that's the point. I could be a figment of your imagination for all you know. From your perspective, I'm just someone passing by in a crowd unnoticed, and the wild thing is, you're the same to me - a passer by in my movie, of which I'm the star.

That so, nonetheless, it seems that like me, other people are able to establish valid knowledge of reality with a rationale, and logic independent of both our subjectively conceived and centred experiences. That shared valid understanding of reality is logically prior to our individual experience. It's the difference between statistics and anecdotes.

But if you didn't exist, how would it matter to you? How would you have known it, or even written that post? — Corvus

It matters to me now, while I exist - that I belong(ed) to a species with a future. I would find my existence intolerably masturbatory were there not the prospect of genetic, intellectual and economic legacy. Even while I'm likely to die before society faces the consequences of my failure to even try for a better future; in silence I'd be burdened by guilt and self loathing I need not suffer if it is true that technology applied now, could provide for a long term future. It matters that I try to exist; and that's why I wrote the post.

Did I answer your question? I'm not quite sure I understood it.

I feel that they are all important part of Philosophy. Epistemology without metaphysics would be meaningless. Objectivism doesn't exist without subjects. — Corvus

The subject cannot exist but in a rightful relation to objective reality. It follows from the design of DNA, to the physiology of organisms, to the behaviours of animals - that the surviving organism must exhibit rightness to reality to survive. It's why bird's build nests before they lay eggs, why organisms appear designed, and designed to fit into a complex environment. This then sets a premium on the subjects knowledge of objective reality, over even, knowledge of self revealed via contemplations upon the nature of being.

Wild, unfounded assumption that's just necessary to prop up your capitalist ideology. I don't share it nor the idea capitalism is a good system. — Benkei

Really? How astonishing! I would have thought it were obvious capitalism is a good system, and the question therefore, is how it can be sustained? Would you rather be forced backward down a bottleneck of equalitarian poverty - because that's what a green windmill powered future looks like to me, based on the presumption of limits to resources. It's just not true. Look at Malthus, and how the invention of tractors and fertilizers allowed food production to far outpace population growth. Malthus was demonstrably wrong, and yet his argument continues to inform a left wing narrative, and it is so ubiquitous an assumption I fear it is leading to a further, and fatal misapplication of technology, in that a left wing approach to climate change will undermine capitalism such as to forgoe the opportunity that exists in the knowledge skills and industrial capacities capitalism currently commands - to transcend limits to growth via the application of technology.

It's vague idea. You have no clue about its technical or economic viability. You don't even have a proof of concept at this point. — Benkei

Very well, I accept your characterisation of my state of knowledge. You're right, but nonetheless, those were not my approaches to these conclusions. I don't pretend to be a geophysical engineer, or an economist. I am a philosopher addressing the question of whether a sustainable future is possible; and if so, how.

I have identified a series of technologies that would reasonably provide for sustainability in order to answer that question, and this raised the question of our current approach; the ubiquitous left wing limits to resources presumption that sustainability requires sacrifice via regulation and taxation. Scientifically and technologically speaking, that's not only untrue, but fatal. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and so we need more energy; not less - to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability in our favour. This in turn suggests a supply side approach that preserves freedom, by internalising the externalities of capitalism with a virtually limitless source of energy, rather than internalising them to the economy.

With regard to proof of concept, I can't help thinking of the Wright Brother's plane - because if that plane constitutes proof of concept, and I think, quintessentially, it does - then there's sufficient proof there's large amounts of energy underground we can harness for our benefit. I'm betting it could be done better.

The problem is that at this stage you have an idea but no plan. — Benkei

I'm not sure that's what I have at all. To my mind, I have a problem, and a likely solution. It's not a vague solution; technical detail is lacking, but it's a specific idea, likely adequate to the problem, and if so, the least disruptive solution, with maximum benefit at least cost.

I have my limitations, but politically, it is the right answer - because, otherwise huge sacrifices in diametric opposition to the natural interests of people and capitalist democracies, are required in advance of - in order to achieve environmental benefits. That's not a road we want to go down. It leads nowhere.

This is about more than how to solve climate change, but about how not to go about it - and that's a matter of political philosophy, surprisingly! Can you provide any insight into the question, of to what degree the overwhelming left wing bias on this forum, or rather - my intention to solve climate change in a manner that doesn't require smashing capitalism first, has contributed to the generally negative reception for what seems to me a pretty darn good and right-minded idea?

Near volcanoes it will therefore be high because that's igneous rock. Let's assume there's no temperature drop, how much rock do you need to power a city like New York? How many holes? — Benkei

Good question. I don't know, but I do know there is sufficient magma energy to power New York City, and every other city for that matter. An answer would depend on the efficiency of the technology, and that remains a question.

How about the engineering part? What existing machines come close and how are you going to make them suitable for those environments? How much is it going to cost? Is it economically viable? How does it compare to other renewable energy sources? — Benkei

With regard to the engineering, I think exploiting each geothermal energy source will present a specific engineering challenge, and that practice makes perfect. General principles and techniques will emerge from, and guide the practice, and the energy developed can be applied to carbon capture and desalination while capacity is built to take over from fossil fuels.

Two or three times current global energy demand cannot put a dent in the heat energy of the planet, because the energy emitted by the earth every day is many, many times greater. Assuming we soon developed the technology to harness an effectively limitless quantity of energy, I imagine we'd achieve post materiality hundreds of years hence. Ultimately, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. But surely that's a better problem to be faced with than starving in the ruins of civilisation.

For me, philosophy begins with epistemology. Subjectivism and metaphysics are sophistry, not philosophy.

It was right before the election, remember; burning and looting - and the left applauding from a kneeling position as people's homes and businesses went up in flames!

Correction:

Portland residents held hostage to continuing violence as mainstream media looks away
Posted by: Scott A. Davis, June 17, 2021.

PORTLAND, OR – Despite mostly silence from mainstream media, the residents and businesses in Portland continue to suffer under relentless anti-police riots more than a year after the violence began. ...

Residents have been held hostage in the city as violence appears no longer tied to protests, but to simple anarchy. One 44-year-old Portlander told The Epoch Times:

“There are brazen shootings and killings in broad daylight which did not happen before this past year. The violence is no longer limited to nights or certain neighborhoods.”

“While most left-wing activists welcomed the Biden inauguration, Portland activists unveiled signs that read “WE DON’T WANT BIDEN—WE WANT REVENGE” and swarmed the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, throwing rocks, bottles, and a pepper-like spray from paintball guns.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/portland-residents-held-hostage-to-continuing-violence-as-mainstream-media-looks-away/

Keep the applause going!
Those left wing rioters need your left wing support!

I'd say that I have established it (I have) and you have not, but since you know what I'm thinking, then you must have established it too, right? — James Riley

I have no idea what you're thinking, but I get a mental image of a dead cat in a tumble dryer.

But then I guess you proved you don't know what I'm thinking because you think I'm thinking murder. — James Riley

And you're not? Okay then, for the last time of asking, how do you propose to reduce population from 8 billion to under 1 million?

Remember that I was talking about magma energy as a solution to climate change - and you suggested population reduction instead, so the time limit was always implied. There is no way to do that without committing genocide.

This proves that you don't know what you don't know. Teachable moment: From now on, don't tell other people what they are thinking. Ask instead. Doh! — James Riley

I've asked several times, and you have still not given an answer. That's because you don't have one. Just admit that your post was an unreasoning expression of hate.

LOL! You're an idiot. — James Riley

We've established that. What we haven't established is how you intend to reduce human population to under 1 million in time to save the planet. If that's not a viable option - and clearly it isn't, then we have to do something else. Like, what I was talking about before you so rudely interrupted me to advocate genocide.

First of all, fuck 8-10 billion people. — James Riley

We have very different perspectives. I care about sustainability, but not because I conceive of nature as some romantic ideal - I put before human interests. Sure, after applying magma energy technology, I'd suggest desalinating water to irrigate and develop wastelands; rather than burn the forests and deplete natural water sources, but that's because forests are necessary to a sustainable biosphere. Not because I hate humanity, yet get all weepy about trees. I'm trying to describe ways to secure a decent future with minimal disruption, and you want to send out murder squads! Sad thing is, your plan is more likely than mine!

So the answer is "no." You don't have the intellectual horsepower to come up with something other than murder. — James Riley

It's your idea; you suggested population reduction - it's for you to say how you intend to achieve that. I said over-population isn't the problem. The misapplication of technology is the problem. Applying the right technologies 8-10bn people could survive and prosper long term - with very few government interventions in the market or civil sphere.