Of course the mainstream media is circus, run indirectly by the ultimate power, the deep state, designed to distract. Always has been.
And so, the way when finally a climate change question was asked at the Democratic debate circus, it turned into "Will your plan save Miami?"
And that's a partly a trick question, in which timeframe. But mostly, no, Miami is a gonner in the long term, surely in 200 years if not 100. But maybe other coastal cities could be saved.
But even that's doubtful, given the design and composition of our governing systems--power based on wealth based on exponentially growing destructive processes. Collapse of everything is the virtually certain scenario, and epochal melt of all permanent ice--though that might take a millenia it will be baked into the cake before the collapse, in the next 100-200 years.
Repurposing the imperal and war machines into green development, turning capitalism and it's exploitative power system upside down, radical and total change could make a difference. I argue to have a good chance, we also need to simultaneously reduce human population to 1 billion. It's possible, it could be done without sweat--provided we had a radical communist society.
Under current social arrangement, it's unlikely changes will be more than the window dressing that even at best the world has seen so far, until far too close to total collapse.
If this sounds to hopeless to even care about, I don't mean to sound certain. While I've suggested a median projection through my vast knowledge from endless sources filtered through a gut reaction (I'm just going a bit past Limits to Growth projections in their last 1999 edition.) It's within the realm of possibility that a 10 year Green New Deal, if that were possible, that converted us to 100% renewable energy, if that were possible to do in 10 years, and applied through international agreements, mandates, and support everywhere the 600 ppm CO2 track to total ice melt might be avoided.
It's all stretching credibility, but rather than decry all approaches without mass population reduction as Limits to Growth did, which is almost inconceivable, and that the changing of energy sources is a mere slowing of total collapse...which would then be even greater when it did occur, I'm operating under the somewhat more intuitive idea that the more we can do, the better: the more doomsday can be delayed, the more sliver of a chance that we'll slip through the worst, somehow.
So it's worth trying everything we can, full speed ahead, on all hearts and minds, both because it improves the odds of avoiding collapse of everything, and because even if we're avoiding that anyway, it improves the outcome.
But radical change is almost certain to be necessary, ultimately, for success, and the longer it takes to get started, the more radical.
And so, the way when finally a climate change question was asked at the Democratic debate circus, it turned into "Will your plan save Miami?"
And that's a partly a trick question, in which timeframe. But mostly, no, Miami is a gonner in the long term, surely in 200 years if not 100. But maybe other coastal cities could be saved.
But even that's doubtful, given the design and composition of our governing systems--power based on wealth based on exponentially growing destructive processes. Collapse of everything is the virtually certain scenario, and epochal melt of all permanent ice--though that might take a millenia it will be baked into the cake before the collapse, in the next 100-200 years.
Repurposing the imperal and war machines into green development, turning capitalism and it's exploitative power system upside down, radical and total change could make a difference. I argue to have a good chance, we also need to simultaneously reduce human population to 1 billion. It's possible, it could be done without sweat--provided we had a radical communist society.
Under current social arrangement, it's unlikely changes will be more than the window dressing that even at best the world has seen so far, until far too close to total collapse.
If this sounds to hopeless to even care about, I don't mean to sound certain. While I've suggested a median projection through my vast knowledge from endless sources filtered through a gut reaction (I'm just going a bit past Limits to Growth projections in their last 1999 edition.) It's within the realm of possibility that a 10 year Green New Deal, if that were possible, that converted us to 100% renewable energy, if that were possible to do in 10 years, and applied through international agreements, mandates, and support everywhere the 600 ppm CO2 track to total ice melt might be avoided.
It's all stretching credibility, but rather than decry all approaches without mass population reduction as Limits to Growth did, which is almost inconceivable, and that the changing of energy sources is a mere slowing of total collapse...which would then be even greater when it did occur, I'm operating under the somewhat more intuitive idea that the more we can do, the better: the more doomsday can be delayed, the more sliver of a chance that we'll slip through the worst, somehow.
So it's worth trying everything we can, full speed ahead, on all hearts and minds, both because it improves the odds of avoiding collapse of everything, and because even if we're avoiding that anyway, it improves the outcome.
But radical change is almost certain to be necessary, ultimately, for success, and the longer it takes to get started, the more radical.
No comments:
Post a Comment