During that two hours, did you perchance - go back and read my post? Or just spend it thinking up another one liner?

I mean, I don't believe it's possible to create a self sustaining fusion reaction that produces excess energy... in earth gravity. That doesn't mean it's not possible to force fusion to occur, but like you say - it requires more energy input, than is produced as output. The energy put in overcomes the exclusion principle; something that in the sun, is achieved by the huge gravity and density of hydrogen plasma. Nuclear fusion will never be a viable power source on earth.

I've encountered the idea of post material values before - that is, the idea that the West can afford to care about the environment, but you make a good and sympathetic argument of it. What choice do they have? I've done a lot of different jobs in my lifetime, and the best employers want to do things well. The idea that capitalism is necessarily a destructive force, I think is false. It's a basic truism of physics, that in an entropic universe - maintaining a particular state requires the expenditure of energy. If energy is a scarce, expensive factor of production - it limits what land and what resources are worth developing, and what can be done to mitigate the consequences of production. It's essentially the same argument: what choice do they have? Limitless clean energy will give us the choice.

I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. I think the huge gravity of the sun creates an immense density of hydrogen plasma - and this is necessary to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle. They can make fusion happen, but I doubt they will ever sustain a reaction in earth gravity under any pressure they can manufacture.

Nuclear fission works, but it's got a lot of drawbacks - not least, sourcing yellow cake Uranium in a world destabilized by a concerted move away from fossil fuels. It takes massive amounts of steel and concrete to build a nuclear power station - usually produced with fossil fuels. It produces radioactive waste materials that have to be stored safely, forever. Then, there's decommissioning a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel - now low level radioactive, has to be dug up and disposed of.

It may seem like a bargain if you ignore all the drawbacks, and focus exclusively on the fact fission produces a lot of energy without producing carbon, but it's false accounting. I have a better idea. The earth is a big ball of molten rock.

If I made a coherent argument, you wouldn't read it. You'd ignore everything I said, and toss off some thoughtless one liner within two minuets of my post.

Eh, those statues have sat there being a celebration of history for a long time, removing them is a symbolic act to acknowledge the ongoing relevance of the warning they represent. — fdrake

How does something that isn't there, say anything? You look at that statue of Colston, for example - and are offended by it. It means something different to you now than it meant to those who erected it, and it will mean something different again to subsequent generations. Who the giddy fuck are you to insist your current opinion, not only trumps that of previous generations, but removes it from the consideration of all subsequent generations?

What do you see? You see an anti western target for your politically correct virtue signalling - a myopic, self righteous view based on the lie that slavery was a particular cruelty invented and practiced by white people, against black people - because they're black. You think slavery was racism. But white people didn't go out and capture black people and force them into slavery. They bought slaves from black people; trading Western manufactured goods - cloth and metal tools for slaves, then trading salves for sugar and spices in the Americas, and then back to Europe to sell the sugar and spices.

Slavery existed since the dawn of time - Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece - they all had slaves. The Arab slave trade from Africa was seven centuries old before Europeans got involved. And a few centuries later, for the first time ever in the entire history of humankind, there arose a civilisation that determined to put an end to slavery. That's what I see when I look at that statue of Colston. I see a man from an age before philosophies on the rights of man and capitalist economics based on individual liberty - allowed for Abolition. You despise the very civilisation that ended slavery - and if you have your anti western way, you would again, make slaves of us all - and call it Communism.

The left wing approach to sustainability is wrong. Capitalism isn't the fundamental problem. The problem is our mistaken relationship to science; in that we disregard it as an understanding of reality, using science for ideological ends. In that context, capitalism without science based regulation is extremely destructive, but it's not the cause. Further, the left's have less-pay more, carbon tax this, stop that, eat grass and cycle to work approach is no solution.

Not only would it imply authoritarian government to impose poverty on the masses for the left wing approach to take effect - (and in that context, the repeated failures of communism to plan a successful economy might be construed as a virtue) only, even more fundamentally, poor people breed more. It's well noted that improved living standards reduce fertility. So reducing living standards would see a population explosion, and ever less resources eeked out between ever more people. That's not a sustainable future - it's some dystopian mash up between 1984 and The Hunger Games!

The answer lies with a very basic tenet of capitalist ideology, from Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. As a justification of private property, Hardin shows that "any freely available resource will be over-exploited." His argument concerned common grazing land, and how everyone with access - acting in their rational self interest, would add another cow, and another, and a few sheep and some goats - until the land was exhausted, and the resource destroyed. The earth is a big ball of molten rock - have at it! Exploit it to the maximum degree!

Producing limitless amounts of clean energy from magma to support continued capitalist growth - we can have a sustainable future with high living standards, and population should level off at around 10-12bn by the year 2100 - according the the mid range UN Population Division projections. Undermine improved living standards by reducing demand, and population will not level out. We have to press on - we have no choice. But we need more energy - not less. That's the key. It's the only way to balance the equation.

Australia is exporting 350 million tonnes of coal to Asia every year - while bushfires rage out of control, and the Brazilian rainforest, and Russian arctic tundra are also ablaze - so patting ourselves on the back because we went without burning coal for a few hours, at night, in summer, is a feel good media puff piece. So are electric vehicles.

Transforming automotive technology simply isn't practical - at this stage. First, it places a very large demand on the national grid at a time when we're turning to technologies that produce less power. I would aim to produce massive amounts of clean energy from the heat energy of the earth first, and distribute that energy as hydrogen fuel - that can then be used in cars...and power stations, producing electricity for the national grid. There are not enough charging points for electric vehicles - about 30,000 installed, whereas, the UK has 30 million cars. Installing all that infrastructure would be an enormous task, and come at a huge cost.

Batteries are not good - they have huge drawbacks. They use a lot of toxic metals that have to be mined, and disposed of - but that's some other countries problem, right? Wrong. In reality, the earth is a single planetary environment, and this is a global problem.

If this were about sustainability, at the very least - they would make batteries interchangable, such that, they would be charged at the filling station, and you pull in, switch out the battery, and off you go. Instead, they have built in batteries.- such that, the car has to sit idle for 12-24 hours to charge, and then goes 250 miles max. You can fast charge the car - but then, you damage the battery, and after three years or so, it won't hold a charge. And you have to scrap the battery and the car.

A systematic approach suggest, first, sourcing massive amounts of clean energy. Because that will cushion the impact of any subsequent transformations - not least by affording petroleum producing countries time to diversify their economies. Distributing that energy as hydrogen fuel suggests HICE hydrogen internal combustion engines, or hydrogen fuel cells - both better options than batteries.

I think it depends on how you read the graph. I read it as total number of electric and hybrid vehicles registered, but if it's annual number of registrations - it's better than not quite none, but it still presents a problem regarding demand on the national grid. Displacing carbon emissions is not the same as not producing them. My approach relies first, on sourcing massive, reliable clean energy from magma - (think geothermal on steroids) and applying that energy to afford continued economic growth, and cushion the transformation, both politically and economically.

I was just looking for that photograph. It's a doozy; 8 years and Ford changed the world. I suppose it took longer elsewhere; and I suppose Ford's transformation is based in turn on the discovery and extraction of oil by "Edwin L. Drake, who employed William Smith, an expert salt driller, to supervise drilling operations and on August 27, 1859, they struck oil at a depth of sixty-nine feet" - but yes, change, when it comes can be very rapid. As we approach upon an unsustainable future, it becomes ever more urgent that it's the right change. And to my mind, electric cars are putting the cart before the horse. First, we need boatloads of clean energy - just as Ford needed boatloads of oil.

Adding massive costs to the taxpayer/consumer will decrease demand, so where do need the huge energy demand on the national grid? — ssu

And just what do have in mind with destabilizing fossil fuel geopolitics? Start a civil war in Saudi-Arabia and have the US attack Iran and Venezuela? — ssu

With both these quotes, you've got the wrong end of the stick. These are, in my view - dangers of what I believe is a wrongful approach - not things I'm trying to achieve, but things I think, my approach would avoid. The UK is planning to ban petrol cars from 2030 - which would place a huge burden on the national grid. I wouldn't do that. Stopping buying petroleum overnight would plunge countries like Saudi, Russia, Iran, Venezuela into chaos. I wouldn't do that either.

I'd produce massive amounts of energy from magma, and use that energy to supply electricity, or hydrogen to the big industrial energy users first - cement, steel, aluminium, shipping, aviation, etc - while using waste heat from the production of electricity and hydrogen fuel, to extract carbon from the air and bury it as calcium carbonate by reinjection. In this way, we could carry on very much as we are, without upsetting the apple cart - separating loss of revenues from huge infrastructure costs, and actively reducing atmospheric carbon - not just, producing a little less of it.

That is a startling transformation from ...none, to not quite none - and it only took a decade! There are 47 million cars in Germany - according to google. I'd deal with that last. I'd extract carbon from the air before I'd trash 47 million cars, impose massive infrastructure costs on the taxpayer/consumer, add huge energy demand to the national grid, and destabilize fossil fuel geo politics. All so some pretentious twit can break their arm patting themselves on the back - for how environmentally conscious they are! It's greenwash. It's not a plan; it's an excuse.

Actually, one has to do quite a lot of reading to see that I am NOT conflating effect with cause. — Bitter Crank

I admit, I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject - but you didn't address my point. Economic geography is still alive and kicking. People can't get home or car insurance based on where they live today. It's just banking procedure. It may be racist in effect, but racism isn't the cause.

Certainly, there were (and are) other major factors which contribute to the wealth/poverty distribution we see today in the US. One doesn't have to be a leftist to acknowledge that. When one compares the collective performance of Immigrant groups, like Somalis, to American blacks, it is clear that big cultural differences are at work. Same for some other immigrant groups who have succeeded under difficult circumstances. — Bitter Crank

No kidding. Chinese labourers went to America to work on the railroads, and were treated very poorly. Yet today, they are the highest performing demographic across the board, education, employment, earnings, zero crime rate. How does one explain that in a supposedly, institutionally racist society?

On "boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior" you want to write it off in favour of your windmill powered, low energy, have less - pay more, anti capitalist, eco commie vision of the future. That's precisely what I'm seeking to avoid.

Think about it - green government planning the economy in relation to some imagined carrying capacity, forever. How could that work? Would the natural resources 'saved' from the seething masses be kept forever off limits? People would vote that down in the blink of an eye if you let them vote - so you can't have democracy, you can't support freedom of choice, or freedom of opinion. It's inhuman. And you'd end up committing genocide because you make people the problem - rather than the application of technology.

"Limits to growth" is false. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to develop them, and the energy is there, beneath our feet. We need to tap that energy in a big way, and then we can begin to repair the damage we've done - extracting carbon from the air, not just emitting less carbon. Developing wastelands for agriculture with fresh water produced from sea water, rather than burning the forests and depleting natural water sources. You would prevent people burning the forests, but offer no alternative - because windmill energy isn't enough, so you'd make them eat Soylent Green.

I can get behind global efforts for clean energy production. Whether your magma chamber idea would be able to produce enough energy is a scientific question, if you're right, that still leaves the political problems of its implementation. — fdrake

I agree, but I believe I can make the case - even to fossil fuel producing nation states and companies. For instance, the UK is currently planning to build windmills and ban fossil fuel powered cars by 2030. That's bizarre; because wind power can hardly be expected to keep the lights on, less yet add 30 million electric vehicles to demand upon the national grid.

Imagine it does work, and we begin producing magma power. The question then is how to apply it. I've looked at various approaches, and what appeals to my eye - other than extracting carbon from the air and burying it, is taking out large energy users first, like steel, cement, aluminium, desalination and irrigation, shipping, planes, trains, recycling etc, and someway down the road, eventually - cars. But not immediately, because it's too much. Huge infrastructure costs and loss of revenues at the same time, will cause economic havoc, political instability - war, famine and death. We don't want that. We want a smooth, orderly, profitable transition to a high energy sustainable future based on clean energy. Petroleum producing nations need time to diversify their economies, and we need time to build the infrastructure to support 30 million electric vehicles. Applied carefully, magma energy can give us time.

Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"? — fdrake

Asked questions like this, I always think of Napoleon, blowing the nose off the Sphnix with a cannon, relative to Lord Elgin, who spent his entire family fortune to save the marbles of the Acropolis, which at the time was being used as an ammo dump in a war between the Greeks and the Turks. And today's politically correct, anti Western colonialist claims that the marbles must be returned.
Looking back from that high energy sustainable future, yes - I think people would regret destroying history for what it symbolises today. I think providing the world with limitless clean energy from magma, securing the future for humankind makes good on the civilisation we fought to build, and that sanitising history removes a warning label from what might come again if we don't keep building.

Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people). — Echarmion

Oh dear, am I? I do apologise. I had heard it was around 40 people dead, but I can't vouch for the validity of the source. So how many people were killed in the BLM rioting? Usually, one would rely on the media to tally such figures, but there's been a distinct lack of criticism. The deaths and damage are being ignored.

Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good? — Echarmion

It's an opinion - I suppose. I don't claim it's the only possible opinion. Indeed, I have repeatedly said I don't know if the election was fraudulent. I acknowledge the possibility those people were misled. But then, they can't be blamed for being misled, and in my view - occupying the seat of government is the correct response to a fraudulent election.

The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one. — Echarmion

I wouldn't subsume this problem under a sociological heading. It's philosophy, political theory, history. The Church is a political organisation, not a social one. In 1634, when the Church tried Galileo for heresy, they were in effect a pan-European government, banking house, and system of justice. It was not the happy clappers who meet in the community centre on Sunday mornings to praise Jesus. A large part of European colonialism was people escaping the absolutist power of the Church. The Church was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792 - 60 years into the Industrial Revolution; a revolution based on applied science. We used science, sure - but it wasn't recognised as an understanding of reality, and consequently, we have applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. That's a problem of philosophy, of political theory, of history - but it's not sociology.

Can you elaborate on how a scientific understanding of reality can tell us what to do? — Echarmion

Good question. Hostile question, but spot on. I assume you know Hume, and the is/ought dichotomy. Hume writes:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, ...when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

Hume maintains that this is a fallacy; but he says it himself - it's what human beings do. Neither you nor I can look at a list of facts without prioritising them in terms of our moral values. It occurs because, contrary to popular belief - morality is not external to us, given by God, or capable of precise codification. It's internal - a sense, like a sense of humour, or the aesthetic sense. It's ingrained into us by evolution in a tribal context - wherein, the moral individual within the tribe, and the moral tribe, conferred evolutionary advantages in the struggle to survive to breed, and pass on those qualities to subsequent generations. Religion, law, politics, economics etc, are expressions of that innate moral sense.

It's actually quite interesting because Nietzsche didn't understand this. He believed man in a state of nature was a wilful brute, and that religion was an inversion of the values natural to this superman. But he was wrong. Man could not have survived if he didn't share food, and look after the tribe. Nietzsche's amoral superman would soon have died out. The strong were not fooled by the weak - hunter gatherers joined together to form civilisations, and needed explicit moral codes justified with reference to God. We then promptly forgot this because religion requires faith and claims divine authorship, and divine authority for God's laws. So Hume writes of a morality external to us - whereas, in reality, it's an ingrained moral sense, and our rightful place is the bridge between the is and the ought, between fact and value, knowing what's scientifically true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's scientifically true.

I see. So you believe drilling to the centre of the planet in lots of places will save us all. — fdrake

No. I don't propose drilling to the core of the earth. I was explaining how vast the energy of the earth is - 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around. We could tap that energy forever and never put a dent in it. I suggest drilling close to magma chambers, and at subduction zones, where one continental plate meets another. There are about 500 volcanic islands in the Pacific Rim - far from anywhere and surrounded by water. There's also a huge magma chamber in the US - under Yellowstone national park, but I'd leave that one alone for now. It's too large, and too close to civilisation to make it a test subject. If something goes wrong - a super-volcano would take out most of North America. And we wouldn't want that, would we!

These quotes are from different posts. The former is from my reply to Count Timothy Von Icarus, regarding the US Presidential election. The latter is from my reply to fdrake, and it's all about clean energy. Truth is a common theme, but I'm not saying clean energy from magma will somehow make the election process fraud proof. All I said originally - about five pages ago, is that the capitol protestors are being unfairly demonised - (unlike BLM who were cheered on by the media as they burnt and looted businesses, causing hundreds of millions in property damage and killing over 40 people) - the capitol protestors people were defending democracy, and they're being pilloried. I've been defending that, over and over again - ever since. I didn't say that there was election fraud. I've admitted, I don't know. Those people, and there were a lot of them - believed there was election fraud, and they sought to occupy government. Good on them, I say.

I don't know where you get the idea -

You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem. — Echarmion

Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns. So, we use science, but don't observe it. We apply technology as religious, political and economic ideology suggests, rather than - as a scientific understanding of reality suggests. It's a mistake - deeply buried in our philosophical history, and just never revisited. I'm revisiting it!

The Problem of Induction. Karl Popper. Yes. I get your point, but it doesn't really apply here. I don't know because I live in the UK, and believe it or not - we've got our own problems. Covid and brexit dominate our news cycle. The US Presidential election - while obviously, very important, isn't on 24/7. We're like, 200 years, and they still haven't got a handle on democracy! Might I suggest you return our colony to the rightful rule of Her Majesty?

The media has repeated over and over that fraud allegations are ridiculous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly! It's odd, frankly, that media are so adamant the election was legit. When have they ever - not been out to sensationalise and scandalise? But what do I know? I'm a million miles away, and can only speak in terms of generalities. I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President." Now, it seems like - it's all the same accusations, with the roles reversed. I don't know any more about it than that - and I'm not willing to take your word for it. I've heard you though. I understand what you believe, and acknowledge, you probably know more about it than me. I just don't know if you're being fair minded, or are defending the left wing position.

What do you think the problems and the solutions are? — fdrake

The fundamental nature of the problem is not capitalism. It's our mistaken relationship to science as truth; established when Galileo was tried for heresy, for proving the earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Consequently, we have used the tools, but have not observed the instructions. We continue to act on the basis of ideological conceptions of the world; applying or withholding technology as ideological priorities dictate - and not, as a scientific understanding of reality suggests we should, assuming only we wish to survive.

Looked at in these terms the solution is obvious. Drill through hot volcanic rock, and use the vast heat energy of the earth to extract carbon from the air, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, and so meet all our energy needs, and more, from a virtually limitless source of clean energy.

Scientifically, energy is fundamental to everything we do. It follows that resources are a function of the energy available to create them - there is no limits to growth, just the misapplication of technology. We can have a high energy sustainable future with high living standards. We can make a paradise of the world - fountains, fruit trees and marble floors for miles. We just need enough energy - and it's there, beneath our feet, a big ball of molten rock 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around.

We can't shut it all down and sit in the cold and dark forever, eating grass and walking to work. We have to power through. Make good on civilisation by securing the future; not backing down, while apologising profusely for all the crap our ancestors did to eachother - but making those sacrifices worth something by securing a decent future for humankind.

I've admitted, numerous times, that I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK. You Yankie-doodles are much closer to this than I am. We get an impression through "world news" - but it's not the lead story over here. From what I've experienced of your media - it's utterly polarised, and that's where I'd lay the blame. Rightly or wrongly, those people who protested in the capitol believed they were doing the right thing, and if the election was a fraud - what they did was patriotic and in defence of democracy. If they were misled by a highly polarised political/media landscape, that's hardly their fault. Maybe politics of all persuasions, and the media need to reaffirm their commitment to truth and the common good. Country before party. Truth, justice and the American way.

One doesn't need to do very much reading on the HRA to realise that your explanation of the issues, conflates effect with cause. It may indeed, have had the effect of relative disadvantage for blacks, but there wasn't specific race based discrimination as far as I can tell. Apparently, 2% of FHA mortgages did go to blacks.

Redlining - was based on economic geography, not skin colour per se. It was was an active policy for around 30 years - 1935-1968; that banks refused mortgage applications from people living in certain areas. That approach has not gone away. I know people today, who can't get home or car insurance because of where they live - because there's high crime and low employment. It's just how banks work.

The problem here is that one person's success, is viewed as another's failure. That's a vice; not a virtue. Do not covet thy neighbour ass. I'm glad I live in a society where people are able to succeed. Inequality is good. People become rich by creating things, and then use the money to buy stuff, pay tax and employ people.

The responsibility is with the individual - to develop their talents and sell them into the market; and so serve society by buying stuff, employing people and paying tax. You would place the responsibility for individuals economic well being on society. You require banks to make economically risky decisions, and where did that lead to in 2008? To a mortgage crisis, based on bad debt - and an economic recession that wiped out economies around the world. In short, you're looking at all this down the wrong end of the telescope.

On windmills, it doesn't really matter if the whole thing needs replacing every 25 years. Or if the tower can be re-used. They still won't produce enough energy to meet our needs. Further, because wind is intermittent - it either requires storage facilities be built, or fossil fuel back up; so twice the energy infrastructure. They really are - not a good idea. And nor is ...."cease and desist." You've just been weeping buckets of blood over poor black people, and now you want to impose poverty on everyone, forever after? Explain this to me. Is it that you think poverty is fine - just so long as it's not racist poverty? You would pull down the ceiling - make everyone equally poor, and then congratulate yourself that you've achieved equality? That's insane!

In my view, we need to apply the technology to draw limitless amounts of energy from the earth's molten interior - by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore holes with pipes and pumping water through, to produce super-heated steam, to drive turbines to produce massive base load electricity.

This energy can then be used to produce hydrogen fuel, that can be piped and shipped around the world, and burnt in traditional power stations - thus utilizing the larger part of the existing energy infrastructure. Waste heat can be used to extract carbon from the air and bury it, and desalinate water to irrigate land - for agriculture and habitation. In this way we can protect forest and natural water sources, resist desertification - while maintaining productivity and high living standards.

And think about this; it may take hundreds of years, but - because resources are a consequence of the energy available to produce them, eventually, based on limitless clean energy, capitalism would ultimately achieve post materiality - and that's a form of equality I can live with. If I were an eco-commie, I'd be demanding capitalism live up to its own premises - from Hardin's tragedy of the Commons, that says "any freely available resource will be exploited to extinction." Well there it is - more energy than you can shake a fistfull of dollars at. Have at it!

You don't think political correctness is authoritarian? Those who don't parrot the dogma get burned at the stake of cancel culture. Then, climate change - (do you mean IPCC?) The left want to stop people flying, eating meat, driving cars etc. Do you know what Liberty is? Freedom of speech, and freedom of choice are an anathema to the left. Their climate policies imply an increasingly authoritarian government and planned economy. Politically correct eco commies. Anti capitalist, anti free speech - anti western. They're the enemy within, a 5th column, reds under the bed!

Trump is small government, low tax and low regulation. He refused to appoint people to half of government agencies. That's non authoritarian - his personal style aside, less government equals more freedom. Dishwashers that get the dishes clean because there isn't some government agency making laws about how much water or electricity they can use. Fine by me. I want freedom - but to afford it we need limitless clean energy from magma.

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
— counterpunch

So are you going to start a thread about that sometime? — Pfhorrest

I don't know. It seems a bit immodest to start a thread to propound my own philosophy. It feels better to introduce my ideas by showing where others are faulty. The problem with left wing ideology on climate change is the 'limits to growth' hypothesis - based in turn on Malthusian pessimism. They want us to pay more and have less, and carbon tax this, and stop doing that, eat grass and cycle to work or whatever. They make people the problem, but in fact - resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Given enough clean energy we can extract carbon from the air and bury it, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle everything, farm fish, and so on - a high energy sustainable future with high living standards, in balance with nature. The left want anti capitalist, eco commie poverty, kept in place by left wing authoritarian government - presumably, forever. It's frankly, a horrifying prospect. We'd be better off sailing off the edge of the world in pursuit of the almighty dollar than letting the eco commies have their way. But I think we can secure a prosperous sustainable future through the application of the right technologies, and that ain't windmills. It's magma power. The heat energy of the earth itself.

Excuse me, I care deeply about the environment. But what if we start doing solar panels and the sun explodes? What if we put up windmills and the winds just stops forever? We'd invest all that money for nothing! — Maw

East Anglia ONE, off the coast of the UK, has 102 windmills, took ten years to build at a cost of £2.5bn, and produces 714MW - enough to power 600,000 homes. The UK has around 30 million homes - so, just to meet domestic energy demand, we'd need over 6000 windmills, at a cost of £1500bn. They have a working life of 25 years, and after that - same again. If you claim wind-power is an adequate solution to climate change then you're either dishonest or crazy. But we're not done, because from 2030, the UK is phasing out petrol cars - adding the demand of 30 million or so, electric vehicles to the national grid. The sums don't add up - not even nearly. They're making promises that are obviously false, just to shut people up - until they can disappear over the political horizon.

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.

I can show you evidence of Black Lies Matter riots, but I can't show you evidence of left wing media - not criticizing them, because - as surely, even the least philosophically educated should be aware, one cannot prove a negative. So, I ask you, of what do you demand evidence? The best advice I can offer is to Google the phrase "mostly peaceful" in relation to BLM; and compare it with the absolute condemnation of the capitol protestors, who - rightly or wrongly, sought to defend democracy. The capitol protestors won't be painting their names on 5th avenue in 10 foot high letters, or having fireworks displays in support of them, half way around the world, paid for by the British tax payer. Can you tell me, how many people BLM killed, or how much property damage they caused? No, and it was a lot. But we don't hear about it. It's left wing media hypocrisy.

Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. ... I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason.
— counterpunch

Fairness and impartiality are good. How about evidence? Can you post a link of any media outlet doing what you claim? — praxis

I could, I guess - but why should I? Because you demand it? Google the phrase 'mostly peaceful' - and I think you'll get my point.

I don't know if you'd call John Oliver a major outlet. I'm in the UK. I'm not glued to Fox or MSNBC - watching in depth political analysis of American politics I can recall 4 years after the fact. But Oliver is generally left wing - and he did a video on voting machines before the 2016 election. I recall a lot of people claiming Trump is 'not my president' - and then there was all the collusion stuff on top of that. The left clearly cast doubt on the validity of the 2016 election. And you are doing still.

I'm not on the frontlines. I've made that clear. I'm from the UK. I've said I don't know if the election was fraudulent or not. But it does seem strange, for all the doubt cast in 2016, that now there's utter certainty on the left that the election was entirely valid. I wonder if they'd be saying that if they'd lost?

If it weren't for Covid - the US economy would still be booming, and Trump would have walked it. He isn't/wasn't such a bad President in many ways. Disaster for the environment - something I care a lot about, but in other ways, he was pretty good. He didn't start any wars, even while he called out China for devaluing their currency and dumping on European and American markets. He encouraged Europe to step up to its obligations on defence, while engaging with the likes of North Korea. He lived up to the small government, low tax principles of the right - and challenged political correctness by saying what he damn well pleased. I think history will remember him fondly.

Conversely, I fear that Biden is beholden to extreme left wing elements, that political correctness will become utterly oppressive, and that his $2 trillion Green New Deal will be a disaster; in that, I don't believe windmills and solar panels can ever provide enough energy to meet our needs. In 25 years they'll all be scrap, and by then it'll be too late to stop climate change. I'd rather a climate change denier - than a plan to apply the wrong technologies, and in doing so, silence all discussion of the subject.

Absolutely, and I'm Wittgenstein — Maw

Are you really? I thought you were dead. Esoteric, incomprehensible, and dead.

Remarkable that you can stereotype and criticize stereotyping in the same breath. I merely mentioned that you appear alt-right, meaning that you reason and say the same sort of things that alt-right folks do. It's not a good sign simply because you've identified as a centrist. It indicates deception.

Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence?
— counterpunch

Who was recently whining about StreetlightX's manner of expression? — praxis

To you! But again, to subjectivists, beauty, or deception - is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I see no value in deception - at least, not on a philosophy forum. I've been very forthright, and consistent in my views. Why would I go to this trouble to express things I don't believe. To deceive who? You? What would be the point?

Challenging what someone says, particularly when they say, they would gladly murder people for having the 'wrong' opinion, is not whining about someone's manner of expression. It's a genuine concern - not least because the genocides of the left have been far more frequent, and much, much larger in scale than any such atrocity by the right, and yet you continue to propound this obviously dangerous, runaway train of a dictatorial dogma.

In my view, your hysterical offence taking is a very small price to pay for freedom. I hope you're offended. I wish it. I'm glad of it, because every time a commie cries, freedom gets its wings!

Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. Your critique of the capitol protests is just as biased. I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason. I know black lives matter is based on social media lies with no statistical basis in fact. I don't know if the election was a fraud. You still haven't explained why the left claimed the 2016 election was a fraud, and why now, you think the electoral system has been fixed. Or, admitted you were lying in 2016 when you protested against Trump's election.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. I can assure you I'm not racist. I do however have big problems with political correctness - not least, that it makes race an issue, and proceeds far beyond colour blind equality into positive discrimination - which effectively, discriminates against white people. And straight people, and men. But we were discussing political correctness in relation to race, and so - the kneejerk response from the left is to accuse me of racism.

I'm in the UK, and I'm Blairite still. It was after the fall of Communism in Russia and China, Blair sought a Third Way - re-rooting socialist values in a compromise with capitalist economics. It was very popular. He won three elections. Nonetheless, Labour denounced him as a red Tory, rejected his philosophy, and doubled down on neo marxian, post modern, reverse identity politics. Problem is, it's a zero sum game - and so the political landscape is utterly polarised.

For me, I'm proud of my country and what we've achieved - and will achieve, if only I could be heard above the madding crowd. The right deny climate change; or insofar as they acknowledge it, make promises for the far distant future they know they won't be around - to fail to deliver. The left use climate change as a battering ram against western civilisation generally, and capitalism in particular. Again polarisation and both wrong. It's not just political correctness. I'm politically homeless, and seek solace in philosophy.

Interesting thing is, I was looking at the US Constitution yesterday, and it states:

Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

That was adopted in 1870. Read in relation to the rest of the Constitution, that guarantees legal equality, it's quite difficult to understand how "economic racism" has been effected. Poverty is not proof of racism. But it is very difficult to escape.

Going back just a little further to 1847, the workers of the Northern mill town where I grew up - all worked in the mill, children too, when Parliament passed the Factories Act - ensuring that , "women and children between the ages of 13 and 18 could work only 63 hours per week." And they were paid in tokens, that could only be redeemed at the company store.

My grandfather - born about 1905, failed his 11 plus and was immediately taken out of school and put to work in the mines, opening and closing doors when the trucks passed, for sixpence a week. Later he was conscripted to fight in WWII, and died in a rented house with hardly a penny to his name. If I lack sympathy for claims of discrimination, it's because I'm white and far from fucking privileged.

Trying to not be PC? It makes you appear alt-right. — praxis

Philosophically speaking, given that your lot appeal to a subjectivism. how I appear to you says something about you, but it says nothing about me. For you, reality is subjectively constructed. You are responsible for how I appear, not me. So, what is alt-right? Is it like Viet Cong, or the Red Peril? Some menacing name conjured up to stereotype, and demonise anyone who opposes the left wing, politically correct cultural strangle hold?

I ask you, seriously, human being to human being, do you not think political correctness is problematic? Do you really think JK Rowling hates trans people because she said something about 'the cervixed" used to be called women? Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence?

Why the hell would you NOT take it personally? — Kenosha Kid

Because this is a philosophy forum, not a chat forum. I'm here to discuss philosophy. I'm not here to butter you up, and become your firmest friend. I'm not here to call you names and become your bitterest enemy. I'm here to discuss philosophy - and frankly, you're letting the side down by dragging the conversation into the gutter of the giving and taking of personal offence.

I don't care whether you like me or not. I do care what you think about political correctness. I'd like you to explain it to me - because, I don't think you can, because it doesn't make a lick of sense.

If you think that makes me racist, then a) you're wrong. and b) I don't give a little rat's turd.

Adopt some academic distance. Discuss the subject matter, and keep your barbed tongue sheathed, or leave me the hell alone.

I can only hope to fare better in your esteem.

The Mayor of London used the New Year's Eve firework display money to hire drones, to form the BLM raised fist slogan in the sky. It was very deliberate, and kept secret until the big show. He's a left wing Labour Mayor, and I've just realised what you're asking.... - yes, the omission was deliberate. Black Lies Matter is a statistically false, social media narrative. When it all kicked off, I looked up the data on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, and it's just not true that the US police are engaged in some sort of racist genocide.

I'm inclined to agree that poverty is a factor, but I'm betting it comes down to intelligence. If a police officer points a gun at you, and you ain't clever enough to comply, then you might just get your dumb ass shot - no matter what colour you are.

I don't quite get your point regards Parler. In the context of a politically correct crusade across all forms of social media - against right wing voices, who have to claim free speech protections for their opinions from the ubiquity of left wing cancel culture, I think it's just another example of shutting down the right while letting the left run wild.

You mention StreetlightX - I came in when he said he wanted to hang racists. He wants to murder people for their opinions. Serious or not, that's extreme - and something I don't think any right winger could get away with. They'd have police kicking their door off if they said that; find themselves in prison for inciting violence. The left wrap their villainy in the garb of righteousness; with such pathetic, self effacing, submissive displays of self recrimination it makes my skin crawl.

So I say to them, you know slavery existed since the dawn of time, right? You know it was thousands of years, black people had been selling other black people into slavery before Europeans got involved. You know we ended the salve trade - and invented almost everything in the modern world. But no. They are blind to the facts. The left hate us. They hate themselves. They'll side with anyone before us.

I'm an offence to all decent people? It's difficult not to take that personally. I think maybe, your problem is that you assume your values are far more universal than in fact they are. I think most people, like me - recognise that left wing politically correct ideology is problematic at best. I'm trying to discuss those problems civilly. If you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head, best you fuck off you mug!

I don't think that says what you think it does, or what it appears to say. I have a degree in sociology and politics, including statistical method - and I know first hand the biases in what are laughingly called the social sciences. The humanities are a breeding ground of left wing, politically correct dogma - and the problem here is, as stated above, that a multi level Bayesian analysis is simply unnecessary. It introduces hierarchical values to data points - in order to construe one shooting as more statistically significant than another shooting. i.e. to introduce the biased assumptions that, unsurprisingly then constitute the conclusion. It's a lie.

I'm not standing for that. I wish to complain. I haven't insulted you, and I don't expect to be insulted. But that's exactly where you left wing ideologues go when you haven't got a leg to stand on; decry the person as racist, sexist or homophobic. I've made quite clear, it's political correctness I have a problem with - not black people, or gays, or women. Left wing ideology. That's what's under discussion here. It's not me playing identity politics - it's you!

That was entirely on purpose - because Black Lies matter is based on lies; a false social media narrative, constructed from carefully edited phonecam footage. For example, it wasn't until police bodycam footage was leaked, we knew that George Floyd resisted arrest in a very aggressive way, and needed to be restrained. Did no-one film that except the police?

Similarly, a black British MP - named Dawn Bulter, filmed the police stopping her car, gave them a bunch of attitude, and then flipped the image to suggest she was the driver - when in fact, she was a passenger, and the driver was white, and splattered the video all over twitter. It's all lies - spread via social media. It's an agenda - not a fact.

It doesn't take into account the number, or type of crimes committed. Look at the bare statistics. Black people - particularly young black males, are much more inclined to violent crime than the average. They commit much more crime than the average. Consequently, they put themselves in harms way. It's not rocket science. A Bayesian analysis covers up the simple truth.

Okay, loathe me then, but statistics speak louder than social media narratives. And the fact is, Black Lies Matter is a false social media narrative created by neo marxist ideologues with carefully edited phone cam footage, to incite black people to riots, and spike the US Presidential election by stuffing politically correct ideology down everyone's throats.

But it has no statistical validity. Police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are less than 1000 arrest related deaths. A minority of those are black people. Furthermore, George Floyd was a junkie scumbag, arrested for passing fake bills, who needed to be restrained because he fought police like a mad dog while hopped up on about six different drugs. He was claiming 'I can't breathe' long before anyone had hold of his neck - undermining the credibility of any such claim later on. And he was saying it because "I can't breathe" is a BLM mantra. How careless is that, making a slogan out of "I can't breathe?" You don't give a shit about black people. It's all a power game to you self righteous neo-marxist ideologues. You claimed the election was a fraud in 2016 - just as, you incited riots with lies; and democracy and law and order are the losers here.