You’re correct. Well said. I would say the nuclear exchange in the fossil fuel environmental degradation are equal. The plastic must be included in the fossil fuel extraction model. It’s all part of the same.
The prerequisites of complex lifeforms surviving in to the second half of the century are the absolute stoppage of fossil fuel extraction and at least 2,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 sequester directly from the atmosphere.
There are fungi that can metabolize everything from radioactive materials to any hydrocarbon derived product ever created. Between that and the widespread adaption of organically grown industrial hemp fiber, substituted for everything from textiles to wood to even an incredibly number of traditionally metallic constituents, how do I could we correct the situation on an atmospheric level but restore the Earth’s bioregional Ecohabitats, if a genuine effort is put forth.
I think that you are oversimplifying in this essay, particularly with the male brain "problem" and the age problem.
The Manhattan project began with the fear that the Germans would develop the bomb and use it against the world. It was an unfounded fear but was based on insufficient intelligence but hindsight is 20-20. Prior to the first test of the bomb the majority of Manhattan project scientists signed a letter stating that the test should not be performed, which was never given to Truman for his consideration. These were all males to my knowledge. Truman was ill informed by his advisors and may have decided not to use it had he seen the test first hand. He was also trying to save thousands of Americans lives and end the war as quickly as possible. At the time it was an impossible decision and can still be argued. Women politicians are essentially no different than men in regards to warfare. Clinton, M.T. Green, Nuland , Thatcher, Meir are a few modern examples.
There have also been societeis where men and women were equal and warfare did not exist. The !Kung being one example.
5) I believe that Hansen is correct about the age question as well. It's a complicated issue to discuss. The conclusion of World War 2 was the beginning of the military industrial complex and the rapid rise of consumer goods. Both were possible because of the increased manufacturing capacity developed during WW2. It was also at that time the CIA (military) began the research programs for propaganda and control of the masses, Mk Ultra being only one. Military propaganda against enemies via leaflets, radio broadcasts and the like were all based on consumer advertising principals developed by Edward Bernays.
See Psychological Operations by Goldstein et al pp 51 published by the US Air force for the details. It includes details on swaying public opinion for support of war using the same methods. You can download it if you like for review which is worthwhile.
Since the 1950s the government and corporations have been intertwined and the economy based largely on the military industrial complex. The masses have been led down the path of over consumption by the government and corporations.
"in other cultures, the accumulated life experiences of the “old people” is valued, whereas these days, with the decreasing emphasis on education, the suitability of younger people to take roles in governance is becoming questionable"
In this culture the "old people " are the ones who have put the world into the dire straits it is currently in, as well as being responsible for the failed educational system. And why would younger people want to learn from those " old people" who have caused the problems? Additionally, the ones who have caused the problems are those who are highly educated. Younger generations are also the most controlled and by and large consumer goods oriented population. If you haven't noticed there is a sharp division financially of the haves and have nots in age. It's about 70+ years old for the haves, the results of Reaganomics and the political system starting with that era continuing and worsening until now. The next generation of leadership is being trained and groomed in institutions like Harvard and Yale and are the offspring of the elite. The policies and attitudes therefore will not change.
At this point in time of crisis, world leaders should be meeting to discuss a solution to the problems. Instead the problem is being ignored and exacerbated by increased use of fossil fuels and promises of increased consumption. Consumers are still only concerned with consumption and are unwilling to change since the majority are followers who follow the leaders.
The main driver of the climate catastrophe is overpopulation which leads to inevitable overconsumption of energy and ecocide. Green energy will not solve the problem because the technology is not advanced enough and is far too polluting and unreliable.
When dollars are called " petrol dollars", switching from fossil fuels to a "green economy" will mean a collapse of the current economy. Petrol dollars will have no meaning. Something no one is talking about or willing to admit. Reduction in energy usage will mean a reduction in production capacity. The mfg sector and the financial sector will both be destroyed.
Rosalie Silberman Abella fell into the same trap as the rest of society for the same reasons. The 60s were the golden age of the US. A time of prosperity, luxury and increased technology. Had the issue of overpopulation been addressed world wide the problems could have been made manageable. Sustainable growth ( an oxymoron) has
recently become a buzzword for real estate, consumption and population.
7) I agree wholeheartedly with Hansen on this. Younger generations will be the recipients and victims of the older generation.
Additionally, the younger generations are unable to elicit change and unwillingly or unknowingly trained/forced into support of the status quo. They are for the most part incapable of thinking for themselves or planning for the future. They have effectively become unwitting zombies thanks to the educational system and the destruction of the family by government policies and economic system over the last 40 years.
Carbon tax, fine, credit? The financial system is a significant part of the climate catastrophe and changing the values of bits in a computer are going to do NOTHING to lower temperature on the planet. The only people who will suffer are the poor. The financial system must be changed not USED to solve climate change. I find it extremely disappointing for Hansen to advocate that as a method.
Just one other little note re this latest post. Substack collects some statistics, it shows there have been 74 views of this post, and 44% "opening" rate. People often just read it in their email; if they click on the title then it "opens" in their browser, so this isn't a very meaningful statistic. The more important one is that they tell if a link in the article has been clicked, by anyone, they don't tell who did what. So, only 4% of readers have clicked on an internal link, and importantly NOBODY clicked on the first link that goes back to Dr. Hansen's original newsletter. That means that NO READERS ever saw the context for why I wrote this post in the first place. As well, NO READERS clicked on the donations link to Columbia, so are all my subscribers doomscrollers?
I am most certainly a doomsayer but not sure about a doomscroller. This doomsayer however is too poor to afford the data to click the external links. Hopefully that will comfort you some no insult just the truth. It's the reason I don't publish more on my own substack. Being destitute is difficult. I have another comment to you I'm writing and will send it out soon.
Thank you, Toma, some good points! But I think you are missing what I was trying to say - us "old people" (70-80) are NOT the problem, we led the revolts such as they were, in the 60s etc. (see Kent State) but were pounded back in line by those who have now just died at 100 years old, the supposed "Greatest Generation." What I'm trying to say re the pickup driver, as just one example (what, I should list them all?) is that if someone tries to cut the fuel supply to his beloved (truck), that would have more dire effect than trying to take away his guns. Yes, you are correct, there are no easy answers, and as I have mentioned, most scenarios result in civil war. I think you have spelled it out better than anyone, regarding the use of the financial system in climate mitigation. To get people to think that something really has to change, NOW, I think an immediate ban on air travel would get the point across, but that is just the first step in taking out the main driver of the economy: which is the alleviation of human boredom. Yes, mainly afflicting the Rich North; I can't imagine anyone in Gaza being bored right now.
Yes, all true, but what I mean is it is that guy in the pickup that will literally go to (civil)war if anyone tries to restrict the feeding of his beloved (truck), and that is exactly what is needed, a restriction on consumption rather than harassing the supply side (oil companies). I marvel at the ease of setting up a new business that depends on the abundance of cheap energy (Uber, Doordash etc.) The true revelation of the male problem https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/men-are-the-problem
is most notable if you separate out the news into male-sourced and regular news, then you would see immediately where all the bad situations dwell.
It's not just the beer swilling, gun toting Big Foot male truckers. There are plenty of women driving Hummers and gas guzzler pickups as well. As well as teenagers. Rather than restrict what vehicles a teen can drive the insurance gets raised. 140 mph sports cars with 450 hp engines are legal when the maximum highway speed is about 60. And EVs are following suit with high hp. Is there anything wrong with this picture you can see?
Shut off television, cellphones and ban cheeseburgers and see what happens. Why restrict it to the fat slob with no front teeth sucking down a Bud while driving in his enhanced phallus?
You’re correct. Well said. I would say the nuclear exchange in the fossil fuel environmental degradation are equal. The plastic must be included in the fossil fuel extraction model. It’s all part of the same.
The prerequisites of complex lifeforms surviving in to the second half of the century are the absolute stoppage of fossil fuel extraction and at least 2,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 sequester directly from the atmosphere.
There are fungi that can metabolize everything from radioactive materials to any hydrocarbon derived product ever created. Between that and the widespread adaption of organically grown industrial hemp fiber, substituted for everything from textiles to wood to even an incredibly number of traditionally metallic constituents, how do I could we correct the situation on an atmospheric level but restore the Earth’s bioregional Ecohabitats, if a genuine effort is put forth.
I think that you are oversimplifying in this essay, particularly with the male brain "problem" and the age problem.
The Manhattan project began with the fear that the Germans would develop the bomb and use it against the world. It was an unfounded fear but was based on insufficient intelligence but hindsight is 20-20. Prior to the first test of the bomb the majority of Manhattan project scientists signed a letter stating that the test should not be performed, which was never given to Truman for his consideration. These were all males to my knowledge. Truman was ill informed by his advisors and may have decided not to use it had he seen the test first hand. He was also trying to save thousands of Americans lives and end the war as quickly as possible. At the time it was an impossible decision and can still be argued. Women politicians are essentially no different than men in regards to warfare. Clinton, M.T. Green, Nuland , Thatcher, Meir are a few modern examples.
There have also been societeis where men and women were equal and warfare did not exist. The !Kung being one example.
5) I believe that Hansen is correct about the age question as well. It's a complicated issue to discuss. The conclusion of World War 2 was the beginning of the military industrial complex and the rapid rise of consumer goods. Both were possible because of the increased manufacturing capacity developed during WW2. It was also at that time the CIA (military) began the research programs for propaganda and control of the masses, Mk Ultra being only one. Military propaganda against enemies via leaflets, radio broadcasts and the like were all based on consumer advertising principals developed by Edward Bernays.
See Psychological Operations by Goldstein et al pp 51 published by the US Air force for the details. It includes details on swaying public opinion for support of war using the same methods. You can download it if you like for review which is worthwhile.
Since the 1950s the government and corporations have been intertwined and the economy based largely on the military industrial complex. The masses have been led down the path of over consumption by the government and corporations.
"in other cultures, the accumulated life experiences of the “old people” is valued, whereas these days, with the decreasing emphasis on education, the suitability of younger people to take roles in governance is becoming questionable"
In this culture the "old people " are the ones who have put the world into the dire straits it is currently in, as well as being responsible for the failed educational system. And why would younger people want to learn from those " old people" who have caused the problems? Additionally, the ones who have caused the problems are those who are highly educated. Younger generations are also the most controlled and by and large consumer goods oriented population. If you haven't noticed there is a sharp division financially of the haves and have nots in age. It's about 70+ years old for the haves, the results of Reaganomics and the political system starting with that era continuing and worsening until now. The next generation of leadership is being trained and groomed in institutions like Harvard and Yale and are the offspring of the elite. The policies and attitudes therefore will not change.
At this point in time of crisis, world leaders should be meeting to discuss a solution to the problems. Instead the problem is being ignored and exacerbated by increased use of fossil fuels and promises of increased consumption. Consumers are still only concerned with consumption and are unwilling to change since the majority are followers who follow the leaders.
The main driver of the climate catastrophe is overpopulation which leads to inevitable overconsumption of energy and ecocide. Green energy will not solve the problem because the technology is not advanced enough and is far too polluting and unreliable.
When dollars are called " petrol dollars", switching from fossil fuels to a "green economy" will mean a collapse of the current economy. Petrol dollars will have no meaning. Something no one is talking about or willing to admit. Reduction in energy usage will mean a reduction in production capacity. The mfg sector and the financial sector will both be destroyed.
Rosalie Silberman Abella fell into the same trap as the rest of society for the same reasons. The 60s were the golden age of the US. A time of prosperity, luxury and increased technology. Had the issue of overpopulation been addressed world wide the problems could have been made manageable. Sustainable growth ( an oxymoron) has
recently become a buzzword for real estate, consumption and population.
7) I agree wholeheartedly with Hansen on this. Younger generations will be the recipients and victims of the older generation.
Additionally, the younger generations are unable to elicit change and unwillingly or unknowingly trained/forced into support of the status quo. They are for the most part incapable of thinking for themselves or planning for the future. They have effectively become unwitting zombies thanks to the educational system and the destruction of the family by government policies and economic system over the last 40 years.
Carbon tax, fine, credit? The financial system is a significant part of the climate catastrophe and changing the values of bits in a computer are going to do NOTHING to lower temperature on the planet. The only people who will suffer are the poor. The financial system must be changed not USED to solve climate change. I find it extremely disappointing for Hansen to advocate that as a method.
Just one other little note re this latest post. Substack collects some statistics, it shows there have been 74 views of this post, and 44% "opening" rate. People often just read it in their email; if they click on the title then it "opens" in their browser, so this isn't a very meaningful statistic. The more important one is that they tell if a link in the article has been clicked, by anyone, they don't tell who did what. So, only 4% of readers have clicked on an internal link, and importantly NOBODY clicked on the first link that goes back to Dr. Hansen's original newsletter. That means that NO READERS ever saw the context for why I wrote this post in the first place. As well, NO READERS clicked on the donations link to Columbia, so are all my subscribers doomscrollers?
I am most certainly a doomsayer but not sure about a doomscroller. This doomsayer however is too poor to afford the data to click the external links. Hopefully that will comfort you some no insult just the truth. It's the reason I don't publish more on my own substack. Being destitute is difficult. I have another comment to you I'm writing and will send it out soon.
Peace
Thank you, Toma, some good points! But I think you are missing what I was trying to say - us "old people" (70-80) are NOT the problem, we led the revolts such as they were, in the 60s etc. (see Kent State) but were pounded back in line by those who have now just died at 100 years old, the supposed "Greatest Generation." What I'm trying to say re the pickup driver, as just one example (what, I should list them all?) is that if someone tries to cut the fuel supply to his beloved (truck), that would have more dire effect than trying to take away his guns. Yes, you are correct, there are no easy answers, and as I have mentioned, most scenarios result in civil war. I think you have spelled it out better than anyone, regarding the use of the financial system in climate mitigation. To get people to think that something really has to change, NOW, I think an immediate ban on air travel would get the point across, but that is just the first step in taking out the main driver of the economy: which is the alleviation of human boredom. Yes, mainly afflicting the Rich North; I can't imagine anyone in Gaza being bored right now.
Please enough man-blaming, you could substitute beerbelly pickup man for big SUV mum,
man is doing the dirty work to benefit woman and child as well as himself,
evolution has not ceased in humans - for
countless generations dominant aggressive he-man has produced more offspring than
nurturing empathic man and woman has evolved to favour men with these characteristics
for breeding purposes, this double selection pressure has locked us into a downward
spiral, fox breeding experiments conducted by Dmitry Belaev demonstrate that given the will
to do it this can be reversed in a few generations - some hope?
Yes, all true, but what I mean is it is that guy in the pickup that will literally go to (civil)war if anyone tries to restrict the feeding of his beloved (truck), and that is exactly what is needed, a restriction on consumption rather than harassing the supply side (oil companies). I marvel at the ease of setting up a new business that depends on the abundance of cheap energy (Uber, Doordash etc.) The true revelation of the male problem https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/men-are-the-problem
is most notable if you separate out the news into male-sourced and regular news, then you would see immediately where all the bad situations dwell.
It's not just the beer swilling, gun toting Big Foot male truckers. There are plenty of women driving Hummers and gas guzzler pickups as well. As well as teenagers. Rather than restrict what vehicles a teen can drive the insurance gets raised. 140 mph sports cars with 450 hp engines are legal when the maximum highway speed is about 60. And EVs are following suit with high hp. Is there anything wrong with this picture you can see?
Shut off television, cellphones and ban cheeseburgers and see what happens. Why restrict it to the fat slob with no front teeth sucking down a Bud while driving in his enhanced phallus?