Climate Change, energy, Environment, Evolution, Global Warming, Natural Law, Planet Earth

Apocalypse Now!… Averting the collapse of civilisation? pffffft! :/

“Well… I can only see one way this is going to go… a global cull of the human species. No-one wants to publicly admit it, but we’ve evolved into two separate species…. we have the greatest discovery this species ahs ever made (GUT-CP)… if it’s a choice between throwing it in the dustbin of history or culling a few billion people… I’m going with GUT-CP.”

“While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory ‘so far’ in support of doing nothing.”

georgia

David Attenborough: collapse of civilisation is on the horizon

Naturalist tells leaders at UN climate summit that fate of world is in their hands

“Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” he said. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for ‘irreversible collapse’?

Natural and social scientists develop new model of how ‘perfect storm’ of crises could unravel global system

earthwarm

A new study partly-sponsored by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.
Noting that warnings of ‘collapse’ are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

… accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels.”

The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:
“Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.”

Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?

Throughout our history environmental problems have contributed to collapses of civilizations. A new paper published yesterday in Proceedings of the Royal Society B addresses the likelihood that we are facing a global collapse now. The paper concludes that global society can avoid this and recommends that social and natural scientists collaborate on research to develop ways to stimulate a significant increase in popular support for decisive and immediate action on our predicament.

Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s paper provides a comprehensive description of the damaging effects of escalating climate disruption, overpopulation, overconsumption, pole-to-pole distribution of dangerous toxic chemicals, poor technology choices, depletion of resources including water, soils, and biodiversity essential to food production, and other problems currently threatening global environment and society. The problems are not separate, but are complex, interact, and feed on each other.
The authors say serious environmental problems can only be solved and a collapse avoided with unprecedented levels of international cooperation through multiple civil and political organizations. They conclude that if that does not happen, nature will restructure civilization for us.

Society will collapse by 2040 due to catastrophic food shortages, says study

‘The results show that based on plausible climate trends and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots’

A scientific model has suggested that society will collapse in less than three decades due to catastrophic food shortages if policies do not change.
The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute, does not account for society reacting to escalating crises by changing global behaviour and policies.

However the model does show that our current way of life appears to be unsustainable and could have dramatic worldwide consequences.

Dr Aled Jones :D, the Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, told Insurge Intelligence: “We ran the model forward to the year 2040, along a business-as-usual trajectory based on ‘do-nothing’ trends — that is, without any feedback loops that would change the underlying trend.

“The results show that based on plausible climate trends, and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots.
“In this scenario, global society essentially collapses as food production falls permanently short of consumption.”

Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?

Although there is an urban legend that the world will end this year based on a misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar, some researchers think a 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of socioeconomic order and massive drop in human population in this century may be on target

Remember how Wile E. Coyote, in his obsessive pursuit of the Road Runner, would fall off a cliff? The hapless predator ran straight out off the edge, stopped in midair as only an animated character could, looked beneath him in an eye-popping moment of truth, and plummeted straight down into a puff of dust. Splat! Four decades ago, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer model called World3 warned of such a possible course for human civilization in the 21st century. In Limits to Growth, a bitterly disputed 1972 book that explicated these findings, researchers argued that the global industrial system has so much inertia that it cannot readily correct course in response to signals of planetary stress. But unless economic growth skidded to a halt before reaching the edge, they warned, society was headed for overshoot—and a splat that could kill billions.
Don’t look now but we are running in midair, a new book asserts. In 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing), Jorgen Randers of the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, and one of the original World3 modelers, argues that the second half of the 21st century will bring us near apocalypse in the form of severe global warming. Dennis Meadows, professor emeritus of systems policy at the University of New Hampshire who headed the original M.I.T. team and revisited World3 in 1994 and 2004, has an even darker view. The 1970s program had yielded a variety of scenarios, in some of which humanity manages to control production and population to live within planetary limits (described as Limits to Growth). Meadows contends that the model’s sustainable pathways are no longer within reach because humanity has failed to act accordingly.
Instead, the latest global data are tracking one of the most alarming scenarios, in which these variables increase steadily to reach a peak and then suddenly drop in a process called collapse. In fact, “I see collapse happening already,” he says. “Food per capita is going down, energy is becoming more scarce, groundwater is being depleted.” Most worrisome, Randers notes, greenhouse gases are being emitted twice as fast as oceans and forests can absorb them. Whereas in 1972 humans were using 85 percent of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere to support economic activities such as growing food, producing goods and assimilating pollutants, the figure is now at 150 percent—and growing.

Advertisement
Randers’s ideas most closely resemble a World3 scenario in which energy efficiency and renewable energy stave off the worst effects of climate change until after 2050. For the coming few decades, Randers predicts, life on Earth will carry on more or less as before. Wealthy economies will continue to grow, albeit more slowly as investment will need to be diverted to deal with resource constraints and environmental problems, which thereby will leave less capital for creating goods for consumption. Food production will improve: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause plants to grow faster, and warming will open up new areas such as Siberia to cultivation. Population will increase, albeit slowly, to a maximum of about eight billion near 2040. Eventually, however, floods and desertification will start reducing farmland and therefore the availability of grain. Despite humanity’s efforts to ameliorate climate change, Randers predicts that its effects will become devastating sometime after mid-century, when global warming will reinforce itself by, for instance, igniting fires that turn forests into net emitters rather than absorbers of carbon. “Very likely, we will have war long before we get there,” Randers adds grimly. He expects that mass migration from lands rendered unlivable will lead to localized armed conflicts.
Graham Turner of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization fears that collapse could come even earlier, but due to peak oil rather than climate change. After comparing the various scenarios generated by World3 against recent data on population, industrial output and other variables, Turner and, separately, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, conclude that the global system is closely following a business-as-usual output curve. In this model run the economy continues to grow as expected until about 2015, but then falters because nonrenewable resources such as oil become ever more expensive to extract. “Not that we’re running out of any of these resources,” Turner explains. “It’s that as you try to get to unconventional sources such as under deep oceans, it takes a lot more energy to extract each unit of energy.” To keep up oil supply, the model predicts that society will divert investment from agriculture, causing a drop in food production. In this scenario, population peaks around 2030 at between seven and eight billion and then decreases sharply, evening out at about four billion in 2100.

End of days: Is Western civilisation on the brink of collapse?

History tells us all cultures have their sell-by date. Do political strife, crippling inequality and climate change mean the West’s time is now up
par396522-800x533

By Laura Spinney
AH, the good old days, when predictions that “the end is nigh” were seen only on sandwich boards, and the doom-mongers who carried them were easy enough to ignore.
If only things had stayed so simple. The sandwich boards have mostly gone and the world is still here, but the gloomy predictions keep coming, and not all of them are based on creative interpretations of religious texts. Scientists, historians and politicians alike have begun to warn that Western culture is reaching a critical juncture. Cycles of inequality and resource use are heading for a tipping point that in many past civilisations precipitated political unrest, war and finally collapse.
For the most part, though, people are carrying on as usual, shopping for their next holiday or posing on social media. In fact, many people seem blissfully unaware that collapse might be imminent. Are Westerners doing the modern equivalent of sitting around eating grapes while the barbarians hammer on the doors? And more importantly, does science have any ideas about what is really going on, what might happen next and how people could turn things around?

The idea that Western power and influence is in gradual decline, perhaps as a prelude to a precipitous fall, has been around for a while. But it has gained a new urgency with recent political events, not least the election of US president Donald Trump. For some, his turning away from international commitments is part of fulfilling his promise to “make America great again” by concentrating on its own interests. For others, it’s a dangerous move that threatens to undermine the whole world order. Meanwhile, over in the old world, Europe is mired in its own problems.
Using science to predict the future isn’t easy, not least because both “collapse” and “Western civilisation” are difficult to define. We talk about the collapse of the Roman Empire in the middle of the first millennium, for example, but there is plenty of evidence that the empire existed in some form for centuries afterwards and that its influence lingers today. The end of Ancient Egypt was more of a change in the balance of power than a catastrophic event in which everyone died. So, when we talk about collapse, do we mean that people lose everything and go back to the dark ages? Or that it’s going to be socially and politically turbulent for a while?
Western civilisation is a similarly slippery concept. Roughly speaking, it covers parts of the world where the dominant cultural norms originated in Western Europe, including North America, Australia and New Zealand. Beyond that, though, the lines get blurrier. Other civilisations, such as China, were built on different sets of cultural norms, yet thanks to globalisation, defining where Western culture starts and ends is far from easy.
Despite these difficulties, some scientists and historians are analysing the rise and fall of ancient civilisations to look for patterns that might give us a heads-up on what is coming.
So is there any evidence that the West is reaching its end game? According to Peter Turchin, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Connecticut, there are certainly some worrying signs. Turchin was a population biologist studying boom-and-bust cycles in predator and prey animals when he realised that the equations he was using could also describe the rise and fall of ancient civilisations.
In the late 1990s, he began to apply these equations to historical data, looking for patterns that link social factors such as wealth and health inequality to political instability. Sure enough, in past civilisations in Ancient Egypt, China and Russia, he spotted two recurring cycles that are linked to regular era-defining periods of unrest.
“You’ve got to be very optimistic to think that this is just a blip on the screen”
One, a “secular cycle”, lasts two or three centuries. It starts with a fairly equal society, then, as the population grows, the supply of labour begins to outstrip demand and so becomes cheap. Wealthy elites form, while the living standards of the workers fall. As the society becomes more unequal, the cycle enters a more destructive phase, in which the misery of the lowest strata and infighting between elites contribute to social turbulence and, eventually, collapse. Then there is a second, shorter cycle, lasting 50 years and made up of two generations – one peaceful and one turbulent.
Looking at US history Turchin spotted peaks of unrest in 1870, 1920 and 1970. Worse, he predicts that the end of the next 50-year cycle, in around 2020, will coincide with the turbulent part of the longer cycle, causing a period of political unrest that is at least on a par with what happened around 1970, at the peak of the civil rights movement and protests against the Vietnam war.
This prediction echoes one made in 1997 by two amateur historians called William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their book The Fourth Turning: An American prophecy. They claimed that in about 2008 the US would enter a period of crisis that would peak in the 2020s – a claim said to have made a powerful impression on US president Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon.
Turchin made his predictions in 2010, before the election of Donald Trump and the political infighting that surrounded his election, but he has since pointed out that current levels of inequality and political divisions in the US are clear signs that it is entering the downward phase of the cycle. Brexit and the Catalan crisis hint that the US is not the only part of the West to feel the strain.
As for what will happen next, Turchin can’t say. He points out that his model operates at the level of large-scale forces, and can’t predict exactly what might tip unease over into unrest and how bad things might get.
How and why turbulence sometimes turns into collapse is something that concerns Safa Motesharrei, a mathematician at the University of Maryland. He noticed that while, in nature, some prey always survive to keep the cycle going, some societies that collapsed, such as the Maya, the Minoans and the Hittites, never recovered.
Borrowed time
To find out why, he first modelled human populations as if they were predators and natural resources were prey. Then he split the “predators” into two unequal groups, wealthy elites and less well-off commoners.
This showed that either extreme inequality or resource depletion could push a society to collapse, but collapse is irreversible only when the two coincide. “They essentially fuel each other,” says Motesharrei.
Part of the reason is that the “haves” are buffered by their wealth from the effects of resource depletion for longer than the “have-nots” and so resist calls for a change of strategy until it is too late.
This doesn’t bode well for Western societies, which are dangerously unequal. According to a recent analysis, the world’s richest 1 per cent now owns half the wealth, and the gap between the super-rich and everyone else has been growing since the financial crisis of 2008.
The West might already be living on borrowed time. Motesharrei’s group has shown that by rapidly using non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, a society can grow by an order of magnitude beyond what would have been supported by renewables alone, and so is able to postpone its collapse. “But when the collapse happens,” they concluded, “it is much deeper.”

Joseph Tainter, an anthropologist at Utah State University, and author of The Collapse of Complex Societies, offers a similarly bleak outlook. He sees the worst-case scenario as a rupture in fossil fuel availability, causing food and water supplies to fail and millions to die within a few weeks.
That sounds disastrous. But not everyone agrees that the boom-and-bust model applies to modern society. It might have worked when societies were smaller and more isolated, critics say, but now? Can we really imagine the US dissolving in an internal war that would leave no one standing? There are armies of scientists and engineers working on solutions, and in theory we can avoid past societies’ mistakes. Plus, globalisation makes us robust, right?
This comes back to what we mean by collapse. Motesharrei’s group defines historical societies according to strict geographical limits, so that if some people survived and migrated to find new natural resources they would constitute a new society. By this criterion, even very advanced societies have collapsed irreversibly and the West could too. But it wouldn’t necessarily mean annihilation.
For that reason, many researchers avoid the word collapse, and talk instead about a rapid loss of complexity. When the Roman Empire broke up, new societies emerged, but their hierarchies, cultures and economies were less sophisticated, and people lived shorter, unhealthier lives. That kind of across-the-board loss of complexity is unlikely today, says Turchin, but he doesn’t rule out milder versions of it: the break-up of the European Union, say, or the US losing its empire in the form of NATO and close allies such as South Korea.
On the other hand, some people, such as Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Massachusetts, see this kind of global change as a shift up in complexity, with highly centralised structures such as national governments giving way to less centralised, overarching networks of control. “The world is becoming an integrated whole,” says Bar-Yam.
Some scientists, Bar-Yam included, are even predicting a future where the nation state gives way to fuzzy borders and global networks of interlocking organisations, with our cultural identity split between our immediate locality and global regulatory bodies.
However things pan out, almost nobody thinks the outlook for the West is good. “You’ve got to be very optimistic to think that the West’s current difficulties are just a blip on the screen,” says historian Ian Morris of Stanford University in California, author of Why the West Rules – For Now. So, can we do anything to soften the blow?
Turchin says that by manipulating the forces that fuel the cycles, by, for example, introducing more progressive taxes to address income equality and the exploding public debt, it might be possible to avert disaster. And Motesharrei thinks we should rein in population growth to levels his model indicates are sustainable. These exact levels vary over time, depending on how many resources are left and how sustainably – or otherwise – we use them.
The problem with these kinds of solutions, however, is that humans haven’t proved themselves to be great at playing the long game. New psychology research may help to explain why that is the case.
Cognitive scientists recognise two broad modes of thought – a fast, automatic, relatively inflexible mode, and a slower, more analytical, flexible one. Each has its uses, depending on the context, and their relative frequency in a population has long been assumed to be stable. David Rand, a psychologist at Yale University, though, argues that populations might actually cycle between the two over time.
Say a society has a transportation problem. A small group of individuals thinks analytically and invents the car. The problem is solved, not only for them but for millions of others besides, and because a far larger number of people have been relieved of thinking analytically – at least in this one domain – there is a shift in the population towards automatic thinking.
This happens every time a new technology is invented that renders the environment more hospitable. Once large numbers of people use the technology without foresight, problems start to stack up. Climate change resulting from the excess use of fossil fuels is just one example. Others include overuse of antibiotics leading to microbial resistance, and failing to save for retirement.
Jonathan Cohen, a psychologist at Princeton University who developed the theory with Rand, says it could help solve a long-standing puzzle regarding societies heading for ruin: why did they keep up their self-destructive behaviour even though the more analytical people must have seen the danger ahead? “The train had left the station,” says Cohen, and the forward-thinking folk were not steering it.
“Technological innovation may not be able to bail us out as it has in the past”
This is the first time anyone has attempted to link the evolution of societies with human psychology, and the researchers admit their model is simple, for now. And while Rand and his colleagues make no attempt to guide policy, they do think their model suggests a general direction we might look in for remedies. “Education has got to be part of the answer,” says Cohen, adding that there could be more emphasis on analytical thinking in the classroom.
But Tainter says trying to instil more forethought might be a pipe dream. If behavioural economics has taught us anything, he says, it is that human beings are much more emotional than rational when it comes to decision-making. He thinks a more pressing issue to tackle is the dwindling rate of invention relative to investment in R & D, as the world’s problems become harder to solve. “I foresee a pattern in the future where technological innovation is not going to be able to bail us out as it has in the past,” he says.
So, is the West really on the ropes? Perhaps. But ultimately its survival will depend on the speed at which people can adapt. If we don’t reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, tackle inequality and find a way to stop elites from squabbling among themselves, things will not end well. In Tainter’s view, if the West makes it through, it will be more by luck than by good judgement. “We are a species that muddles through,” he says. “That’s all we’ve ever done, and all we’ll ever do.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “The Fall”

Anti-gravity, astro-physics, energy, Futurism, Planet Earth, technology, UN

Ability to travel solar system is key to better life on Earth – UN Outer Space head

“I had a dream a few weeks before I discovered Mills, hydrino energy and GUT-CP… one of those super awesome vivid dreams that I’ll remember for the rest of my life. 😀 It was in the near future, two hundred years or so, and I was just about to travel home from London to Manchester (five minutes on a Tesla type hyperloop), and my wife rung me (it was a dream), asking if I was on my way home and how long I would be… and I thought to myself…
“You know what, I got a spare hour or two… might go the Moon for a pint of Guinness”

Ten minutes later I was sat on my own, in my favourite bar on the Moon, looking out at planet Earth… with a Guinness 😀 … … I had my own spot and the bartender knew me by name and everything!”



 

Ability to travel solar system is key to better life on Earth – UN Outer Space head

Humanity may be on the brink of a leap in the field of space exploration, but are we ready to handle the extraterrestrial boom when it comes? We ask Simonetta Di Pippo, an astrophysicist and the director of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.

Evolution, Futurism, Genetics, GUT-CP, Philosophy, physics, Planet Earth, technology

Humans… time to decide what kind of civilisation you wish to be! Star Trek or Jupiter Ascending?

 

“My friend was today asking the potential implications for the human race of Randell Mills’ monumental discovery…
Coincidently an interesting post appeared on Reddit Brilliant Light Power entitled ‘The Oiligarchs’
Fabius Maximus posed a similar question entitled “Is our future Star Trek or the dystopian Jupiter Ascending?”

The question is…
“Will hydrino energy and the Grand Unified Theory Of Classical have a beneficial impact upon human civilisation?”…

The answer is, it’s the same as EVERY other technology and discovery throughout history… it’s how it’s wielded, by whom, and for what purpose.

The way our civilisation functions today (and has functioned for the previous 12,800 years)… the psychopathic ruling elite will control all aspects to energy, eugenics, and ‘money’… The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics will create a technological revolution for the 21st century… but by the end of that century, I imagine (in all seriousness), the planets elites will be well on their way to becoming immortal intergalactic GODS, whilst the rest of the mere mortal humans will be a subservient species at the complete mercy of their overlord masters.

And all those science fictions films, portraying terrifying planet conquering, evil invading alien civilisations, hell bent on control of the Universe… THAT’LL BE US! 😀

“The 20th century was the century of oil. From farm to fork, factory to freeway, there is no aspect of our modern life that has not been shaped by the oil industry. But as the “post-carbon” era of the 21st century comes into view, there are those who see this as the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn’t be more wrong. This is the remarkable true story of the world that Big Oil is creating, and how they plan to bring it about.”

Posted byu/WupWup9r
The Oiligarchs
Shortly before SoCP was terminated, Dr. Mills expressed an interest in expanding finance models. This was in association with the discussion concerning cryptocurrency. It may be important to examine this from a broader and historical perspective.
James Corbett is an extraordinary documentarian. There are many types of people in the world. Most of us want to mind our own business, to be helpful to people we know, and sometimes to people we don’t know, displaying altruism on occasion. Witness the explosion of helpful videos on YouTube, unrewarded. Few of us are psychotic or sociopathic. We may have ambitions, but ruling the world is not something the ordinary person becomes obsessed with doing. Sure, we’re not perfect, but we feel shame or guilt when we realize we did something wrong. We tend to believe in the golden rule, even if we do not consistently follow it. Most of us tend to believe that psychotics are scary people who live in the shadows, away from respectable people. Many psychotics do live obscurely, but some adapt to very challenging lifestyles, and command prestige. They can be quite likeable. Consider the psychologist Ted Bundy.
Corbett is vitally aware that psychologically dangerous people occupy social positions of great prestige, and I think he explains his clear thinking well. He believes that he sees through a lot of deceptions, and his opinions are worth considering, IMO.
The linked video is wide-ranging. The common thread is the way that energy has been used to control society, and which members of society benefit, and why, as well as the cost to the ordinary members of society.
Corbett is hardly alone in these views. If he is at least somewhat correct, then I would think it is not a stretch to conclude that Dr. Mills should take this history into consideration, because powerful psychotic people do not yield their power willingly. One need not be a psychotic to defeat a psychotic, but it helps. That is, a successful psychotic can be a very formidable opponent, and if you do not realize what you are up against, and how to fight, you will lose.

Hydrino007
Dude… we’ve been living under the control of psychopaths for the past 12,800 years! (not because of aliens or demons, but because of a cometary impact that almost wiped our species out, we’re a traumatised species)… OUR CIVILISATION IS BUILT UPON SURVIVAL MODE (the lowest form of consciousness), it rewards the psychopath and elevates him (or her) to the top level of feudal oligarchy (whether that be Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Monarchism, any ‘ism’)… … when you realise what ‘money’ actually is! Its a Babylonian magic trick… it’s the RESISTOR to the amount of the Suns energy in human society! If humans did away with it, they would be a peaceful, intergalactic, space faring civilisation (Type 2)… even if you don’t believe in ‘conspiracies’ as such, look into the work of Jacques Fresco and The Venus Project… money is a form of control, it is the resistor to the amount of the Suns energy in society… Mills has brought the power of the Sun down to the surface of planet Earth… THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE IN A BIG WAY FOR THIS SPECIES!
Whether that be a Star Trek civilisation, or a Jupiter Ascending civilisation (where the elites become immortal Gods, and the rest become fully obedient slaves… essentially a lower species)… things will change in the next 100 years! 😀
…Another thing to consider is, the last time we had a technological revolution of magnitude (The Industrial Revolution), the human population exploded from 1 billion to 7 billion in 200 years… … what do you think the effect of Mills’s discovery (energy, medicine, genetics etc.) is going to be? Do you think the planet can cope with another population explosion? Big things many people are not considering!

And who gives a shit for the Saudis? 😀 (they have no nukes for a reason!) They can fuck off and try selling sand! Us Brits created the Saudis, we can destroy them whenever we wish!
ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE PSYCHOPATHIC!

Our future will be Jupiter Ascending, unless we make it Star Trek

Larry Kummer, Editor
Book, Film, & TV Reviews, New Industrial Revolution
27 January 2016
Summary: Will our future be like Star Trek or Jupiter Ascending? Star Trek shows us a world beyond scarcity where everybody benefits. In Jupiter Ascending the 1% takes the wealth produced by technology and uses it to rule us. We can choose to make Star Trek our future if we are willing to work for it, but now we’re condemning our children to live in Jupiter Ascending.

jupiter-ascending
“No, I don’t share my wealth. Why do you ask?” From Jupiter Ascending.

Consider the increase in the West’s wealth since 1750 and the advancement in technology. Imagine similar progress for another 250 years, to the time of the original Star Trek TV series. Rick Webb describes that world in “The Economics of Star Trek: The Proto-Post Scarcity Economy“, a market economy whose productivity allows the government to easily provide a high basic income allowance to everybody.

“The amount of welfare benefits available to all citizens is in excess of the needs of the citizens. … Citizens have no financial need to work, as their benefits are more than enough to provide a comfortable life, and there is, clearly, universal health care and education. The Federation has clearly taken the plunge to the other side of people’s fears about European socialist capitalism: yes, some people might not work. So What? Good for them. We think most still will.”

Discussions about Star Trek often focus on what we do with the abundance of goods and services produced by their fantastic tech. It’s fun, like composing fantasy football teams or designing the ideal Prime Directive.
In our world the 1% shows us an alternative to Star Trek. The largest fraction of America’s increased income since 1970 has gone to the 1% — and even more to the .1%. They could share the booty (nobody can consume a billion dollars in a lifetime), but prefer instead to amass wealth and power. Why would this change with the invention of robots and replicators? Continue current trends for a few centuries and you reach Jupiter Ascending — a world of servants and lords, where the rich own planets, live almost forever, and harvest the peons. A world like that of our past, as seen in Pride and Prejudice.
enterprise1
This is the natural course of events for our future. Increased productivity comes from machines and intellectual property. Those who build them earn a living, while the wealth they create goes to those who own them. Software engineers live in nice homes while plutocrats own estates, yachts, submarines, and jets.
Our society has begun to adapt our new reality. The institutions formerly supported by the middle class, such as magazines and charities, find rich patrons to survive. Unions, the center of organized opposition to the 1%, have faded to shadows of their former strength. The major Republican candidates for president agree that taxes on the rich must fall and social services for the rest must be cut. Hillary, like her husband, likes the current rate at which the 1% grows in power and wealth, but wishes to tinker at the edges.
Visions of a great future, like that of Star Trek, can inspire us to act. But the window to do so will close eventually, if the 1% gains enough power that they become invincible. We will leave a dark future to our children if we continue our passivity. Perhaps that fear can shake us from our apathy.

I would say the ONLY way to prevent a dystopian future, where the ruling psychopathic elite have become immortal Gods, ruling their own planets (like Scientology, but for real! :D)… is to completely abandon the concept of money, of Government… The Venus Project… it’s the only way.

“Lord Hurley”
“Fucks talking to you boy?”

Climate Change, Futurism, Global Warming, GUT-CP, Planet Earth, technology

Who? Rothschild? … well we where suppose to have met twice in the past two months. (I imagine they are taking an interest… yeah)

“Well I invited them (or a representative) to The Shard in August… didn’t happen. They invited me to The Shard just two weeks ago (wine tasting), it was too short notice… … we just keep fleetingly passing each other Rothschild!… it’s meant to be.” 😀
Perhaps I wont see any middle fingers from way up here! (goy)

“For the first time in human history the power of the Sun has been brought down to planet Earth”
“The biggest discovery since fire”

“This overturns EVERYTHING! Fossil fuels, ALL energy industries, medicine, chemistry,space… the global financial system… I imagine a few people in The City are aware of it.”

shard

23_24_Syrian_Oil.jpg
Daniel Hurley. Enjoys Chocolate and Champagne (ask you’re cousin), and the ‘things of wealth and taste’… … hope you saved a seat at the table for me gents! 😉

 

Climate Change, Environment, hydrino, Planet Earth, Randell Mills, SunCell, technology, UN

Climate Change/Global Warming, UN Report… the ONLY solution to the global energy crisis! Hydrino energy (and again Game Of Thrones?)

Vanity Fair asks ‘Who Is the Jon Snow of Climate Change?‘ … erm? Me it would seem?

(‘More Ramsay Bolton!’)

AM I THE ONLY PERSON (except for probably Mills himself, and his team at BLP) WHO REALISES AND UNDERSTANDS THAT HYDRINO ENERGY IS THE ONLY VIABLE AND REALISTIC SOLUTION TO SAVING HUMANITY FROM ALMOST CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE?
Yes, Climate Change is real.
Yes, it is caused by human carbon emissions.
No, there is no other solution, except for human civilisation to adopt a brand new energy source (i.e. hydrino energy… it’s the ONLY one that exists!)

And not only will it solve climate change, the technologies that could be developed from GUT-CP could possibly solve EVERY other environmental catastrophe that’s heading our way! (there are others, including plastics, feeding the population, deforestation)

“There’s squabbling among the kingdoms about issues that seem pressing. But meanwhile, far away, there is this looming threat that could eclipse all of it,” says Katharine Davis Reich, associate director at the UCLA IoES Center for Climate Science. She’s talking about Game of Thrones—and also our response to climate change.
Of course, there’s at least one major difference between the two: winter is coming to Westeros, but disappearing on Earth. Still, both worlds’ most pressing problems involve a rejection of information gathered on the front lines, migrations of vulnerable populations that unsettle adjacent communities, and a potential tipping point past which there is no hope of survival.
Peter Griffith, a scientist in Baltimore, MD, who works in the field of carbon cycle and climate, made the connection early while reading the first book in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series: “Any time there was news from the Wall, and it was ridiculed by King’s Landing—the old stories that nursemaids tell to scare children—there was an immediate sense of, boy, this sounds familiar.”

gotclim

Because the only way to get the general public to care about or even understand global climate change is to compare it to their current favourite TV show! (honest to f**k)

The Case for ‘Game of Thrones’ As an Epic Fantasy About Climate Change

Game of Thrones is secretly all about climate change… Summer is coming.

Why the climate of Game of Thrones is about more than the arrival of winter

Climate change is coming
The popular television series has many parallelisms with the threat of global warming. Find them in this gallery

ANYWAY BACK TO PLANET EARTH!!!

earthwarm
“So it this Westeros or Earth? “I think this ones Earth”

Why isn’t the media covering climate change all day, every day?

In a recent column for The Post, Margaret Sullivan said the media must cover climate change as if it’s “the only story that matters.” The Pentagon has stated that climate change is a threat to national security. The World Bank has warned about the devastating impact of rising temperatures on economies. Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, has said that “climate change is actually the biggest thing that’s going on every single day.”
So why isn’t the media covering this story all day, every day?
Climate change has been described as a “catastrophe in slow motion.” But the Trump administration could be called a catastrophe at full speed. The distractions are relentless.

trump
“Trump would be the one who rapes his own daughters… we’ve heard the rumours”

On global warming it’s mission impossible

WASHINGTON — If there were any doubt before, there should be none now. “Solving” the global climate change problem may be humankind’s mission impossible. That’s the gist of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations group charged with monitoring global warming.
Unless we make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and others), warns the IPCC, we face a future of rapidly rising temperatures that will destroy virtually all the world’s coral reefs, intensify droughts and raise sea levels. We need to take action immediately, if not sooner.
The IPCC says that emissions need to be cut 45 percent from present levels by 2030 and virtually eliminated by 2050. This would keep the projected increase in global temperatures since the early 1800s to 1.5 degrees centigrade, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. We would escape the worst consequences of global warming.

It’s not clear how this would be done. The reality is that global carbon emissions are rising, not falling. Emissions today are about 60 percent higher than in 1990, according to the World Bank.
There are at least three obstacles frustrating the IPCC’s agenda.
First, we don’t have the technologies to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas). Yes, solar and wind power have made advances, but they still provide only a tiny share of the world’s total energy, about 4 percent. Electric vehicles don’t solve the problem, because natural gas and coal are the underlying energy sources for much of the electricity.
Second, even if we had the technologies to replace fossil fuels, it’s doubtful that we have the political will to do so. Democracies — or, for that matter, dictatorships — have a difficult time inflicting present political pain for future, hypothetical societal gains. Voters abhor higher gasoline and heating-oil prices, which are an integral part of most proposed solutions for global warming. They would dampen demand for fossil fuels and spur investment in substitutes.
The clearest proof of America’s political bias against the future is the treatment of Social Security and Medicare. For decades, we have known that an aging population would significantly boost spending for these programs. What did we do to prepare for this inevitability? Not much.

Finally, assuming (unrealistically) that today’s advanced societies — led by the United States — overcome these obstacles, it’s unclear whether poorer and so-called “emerging market” countries would follow suit. These countries represent the largest increases in fossil-fuel demand, as they attempt to raise living standards. Already, China is the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, nearly twice as high as the United States.
Economic and population increases boost energy demand. Consider air conditioners. The world now has 1.6 billion air conditioning units, reports the International Energy Agency. By 2050, that could triple to 5.6 billion units. People in advanced societies won’t abandon air conditioning, and people in poorer countries won’t surrender the chance to enjoy it. Much of future demand will come from three countries — China, India and Indonesia.

What is to be done?
Maybe nothing. This seems to be the choice made by many Republicans and the Trump administration, which is withdrawing from the Paris agreement’s commitments to reduce emissions. Trump’s hostility is not as crazy as it sounds. If suppressing global warming is as hard as I’ve argued, one likely response is a series of half measures that don’t much affect global warming but do weaken economic growth. The politicians’ real aim is to brag that they’ve “done something” when all they’ve really done is delude us. Trump would skip this stage.
My own preference is messier and subject to all the above shortcomings. I would gradually impose a stiff fossil-fuel tax (not a 10 or 15 percent tax but a doubling or maybe a tripling of prices) to discourage fossil-fuel use and encourage new energy sources. In addition, some of the tax revenues could reduce budget deficits and simplify income taxes. With luck, a genuine breakthrough might occur: perhaps advances in electric batteries or storage. That would make wind and solar power more practical.
There are risks. It can be argued that this sort of policy, aside from relying on unpopular energy taxes, would represent a triumph of hope over experience. In the name of fighting global warming, we might justify a host of energy boondoggles.
Combating global warming is a noble crusade, but it’s much harder than the rhetoric implies. If we were serious about cutting greenhouse gases, we could adopt comprehensive wartime controls that empower the government to mandate changes. Or we could accept a worldwide depression as a way to quash job growth and greenhouse gases. Obviously, neither is in the cards.
Robert J. Samuelson is a columnist for The Washington Post.

carbon.png

The UN’s Devastating Climate Change Report Was Too Optimistic

The IPCC has been criticized for being “too alarmist. If anything, it is the opposite. With their latest report, they have been overly conservative.”

A decade ago, the “father of global warming”—the first scientist to sound the alarm on climate change in the 1980s to the US Congress—announced that we were too late: the planet had already hit the danger zone.
In a landmark paper, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, along with seven other leading climate scientists, described how a global average temperature above 1°Celsius (C)—involving a level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere of around 450 parts per million (ppm)—would lead to “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss.” But, they added, new data showed that even 1°C was too hot.

At the time the paper was issued in 2008, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were around 385 ppm. This is “already in the dangerous zone,” explained Hansen and his colleagues, noting that most climate models excluded self-reinforcing amplifying feedbacks which would be triggered at this level—things like “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and GHG [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.”
Such feedbacks constitute tipping points which, once triggered, can lead to irreversible or even runaway climate change processes.
According to Hansen and his co-authors, these feedbacks “may begin to come into play on time scales as short as centuries or less.” The only viable solution to guarantee a safe climate, they wrote, is to reduce the level of greenhouse gases to around 350 ppm, if not lower.
Today, we are well in breach of the 1°C upper limit. And we have breached this limit at a much lower level of atmospheric CO2 than Hansen thought would be necessary to warm this much—as of May 2018, the monthly average atmospheric CO2 had reached 410ppm (the August measurement puts it at 409ppm.) This is the highest level of CO2 the earth has seen in 800,000 years.
Ten years on from Hansen’s warning, the UN’s new climate report—presenting the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists—informs us that if we continue at this rate, the planet will warm to around 1.5°C in just 12 years, triggering a sequence of increasingly catastrophic impacts.
According to a Met Office briefing evaluating the implications of the UN report, once we go past 1.5°C, we dramatically increase the risks of floods, droughts, and extreme weather that would impact hundreds of millions of people.
The IPCC says that this would just be the beginning: we are currently on track to hit 3-4°C by end of century, which would lead to a largely unlivable planet.

The IPCC “fails to adequately warn leaders” about six climate tipping points that work in this way. One of the more well-known such tipping points is Arctic sea ice, which could disappear in the summer in just 15 years, according to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic report. The ice acts as a reflector of heat back into the atmosphere, so the more it melts, the more the Arctic waters absorb heat.
This self-reinforcing feedback loop could lead to an ‘Arctic death spiral,’ where the loss of the sea ice accelerates the melting of permafrost, which some scientists believe could release large quantities of methane—a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent in driving warming than CO2—into the atmosphere.
Computer simulations of the Arctic’s thermokarst lakes—a certain type of Arctic lake that forms as permafrost thaws—are not incorporated into current global climate models.
The simulations suggest that toward mid or late century, “the permafrost-carbon feedback should be about equivalent to the second strongest anthropogenic source of greenhouse gases, which is land use change”, Katey Walter Anthony, an associate professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in a press release announcing a NASA-funded study that found the “abrupt thawing” of permafrost could release large amounts of CO2 and methane via soil microbes “within a few decades.”

RADICAL TRANSFORMATION
Despite its blind spots, the IPCC throws down the gauntlet to global policymakers, demanding “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities to slash carbon emissions and begin drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.
By 2030, global CO2 emissions will need to drop 45 percent below 2010 levels—equivalent to over 60 percent below 2015 levels—reaching net zero by 2050. This will be a colossal undertaking. The UN report says it will require “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

“The goal of keeping warming under 1.5°C will require the virtual dissolution of the military-industrial complex”

The financial and banking system will also need new regulation to mainstream this approach, along with new forms of “public-private partnerships” to support “new business models for small-scale enterprises and help households with limited access to capital.”
Without saying it aloud, these sorts of measures entail a fundamental shift in how capitalism as we know it operates, converting the economy from a structure dominated by narrow special interests which accumulate wealth for themselves, to one that serves communities.
clim4

Is there still time to stop climate catastrophe?

THE SITUATION certainly is dire, though we’ve known that for the past 30 years. What we now have are more accurate models of how serious the consequences of global warming will be.
One thing to remember is that the IPCC is a body set up by the United Nations. It is staffed by leading climate change experts, but it only issues reports that are acceptable to the governments they represent. So IPCC predictions tend to be very conservative. Historically, they have consistently underestimated how quickly the climate is warming and how serious the effects will be.
With respect to how quickly the climate is warming, we have pretty good models. In particular, we know the effects of pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere. It’s simple physics that this will result in average global temperatures going up due to the greenhouse effect.
What’s more difficult to model are the so-called “tipping points” and feedback loops. For instance, as the world warms, the polar ice caps start to melt. We’re already at the point where the Arctic is almost ice-free during the summer. With less ice, less sunlight is reflected back into space. Instead, it’s absorbed by the ocean, which in turn speeds up ice loss, so even less sunlight is reflected into space, and so on.
A further effect is that as global warming increases, permafrost — ground that is frozen — begins to thaw, releasing trapped methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has an even bigger impact on warming than carbon dioxide — in the short term, although it does dissipate much faster.
This is another feedback loop: More methane released into the atmosphere means warmer temperatures, which means more loss of permafrost, which means more methane in the atmosphere, and a continuing downward spiral.
All this means that warming may happen even faster than the IPCC predicts. But the dire predictions in the latest report have more to do with the consequences of warming.

The reports says, “There is no documented historic precedent” for what needs to happen, and that’s no exaggeration.

The problem is that governments of every political complexion have prioritized the interests of the fossil-fuel industry.

Leaving the oil in the ground is exactly what we need to do. But that runs counter to the interests of the fossil-fuel industry and the logic of the wider capitalist system in which it is embedded.
The size of the fossil-fuel industry is mind-boggling. There is more capital invested in it than any other industry. The major oil and gas companies make tens of billions of dollars in profits each year, and the total value of existing fossil fuel and nuclear power infrastructure is at least $15 trillion.
Most of this infrastructure has decades of possible further use. But in order to solve the climate crisis, we need to shut it down almost immediately and invest in renewable energy.
The people who own and profit from the existing system obviously won’t let that happen without a huge fight. That’s why they’ve been funding climate denialism for decades, both through sponsorship of think tanks and large campaign contributions to right-wing politicians.
As we now know, Exxon, Shell and other major oil companies knew of the risks of global warming as early as the 1970s from their own research, but they buried it in order to continue making profits.
GIVEN THE institutional opposition to change, is there any realistic way in which the kind of transformations necessary can actually happen?
I DON’T know what the chances are, but I do know that radical change only happens when mass movements demand it.
oil

Beer Prices Could Double Because Of Climate Change, Study Says

The price of beer could rise sharply this century, and it has nothing to do with trends in craft brewing. Instead, a new study says beer prices could double, on average, because of the price of malted barley, a key ingredient in the world’s favorite alcoholic drink.
By projecting heat and drought trends over the coming decades, a team of researchers in China, the U.K. and the U.S. found that barley production could be sharply affected by the shifting climate. And that means some parts of the world would very likely be forced to pay much more for a beer.
In Ireland, a leading beer-consuming nation, prices could triple, the study says.

tyrion1-300x175

THE SOLUTION TO ALL THIS!!!
KEEPING THE ENVIRONMENT FREE OF CARBON EMISSIONS, WHILST KEEPING CAPITALISM IN PLACE, A NEW TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION, KICKSTARTING THE STAGNANT GLOBAL ECONOMY… CLEAN, CHEAP, LIMITLESS, NON-POLLUTING ENERGY SOURCE…. … DRAGONS ARE REAL!!!

drag