My suggestion to environmentalists.

[myrkul]

You advocate forcing people to be nice to Gaia. I've not heard you give, or agree to, any market incentives to encourage that, you just say they should be made to do it. That's advocating violence.

Have you read all my posts? I doubt it.

I love to be proven wrong. It happens so rarely that it's a real treat. Feel free to provide a post that does so.

[1715071886]

1715071886

[1715071886]

1715071886

[FredericBastiat]

What is your point about the dodo bird? All I can imagine is, you think concern over species extinction is about aesthetics. Is that correct? Is it safe to assume that you don't understand ecosystem services, trophic cascades, coevolution, nutrient cycling, water quality, flood control, and so on?

Actually, it does go beyond aesthetics, of course that's a given. And no, I don't understand all of the nuances, specifics, and infinite interactions of all species in relation to all other species and their environment. All I'm trying to say is, if you're going to educate people, then do just that. Do not use the law to force it down their throats.

Unfortunately, that is what you appear to do. Your discussions are slanted in the direction of using force and coercion, if not outright violence, imprisonment, and death of another human being, if they don't respect the environment as much as you do. You will never convince anybody of anything good, if you wave a "gun" in their face (or get your disciples to do it for you).

This is what most governments do. They use the "religion" of "environmentalism" and science to manipulate less educated individuals into relinquishing their property. And for what? The elite? The few? The educated minority? The "perfect" ecosystem -which would be what exactly? Even you couldn't possible assume to know this (gives new meaning to hubris, if that's your claim).

It seems humans are being relegated to beasts of the field. Except that the educated aren't beasts, they're our masters. Weird how that happens. Sounds so last millennia. I thought we got over this slavery thing.

[tiberiandusk]

People don't seem to realize that environmentalists aren't trying to save the Earth. They're trying to save our home. We don't have anywhere else to go at the moment. Once it's fucked, we're fucked.

[myrkul]

People don't seem to realize that environmentalists aren't trying to save the Earth. They're trying to save our home. We don't have anywhere else to go at the moment. Once it's fucked, we're fucked.

I understand that completely. We are part of a self-regulating system. What the environmentalists want to do is to start poking around in that self-regulating system to nudge it back to some arbitrarily defined "norm". Activities such as this have historically ended poorly.

[tiberiandusk]

Right now it's self regulating us right into waterworld or another ice age. With the human population growing so quickly there's no way for the Earth to self-regulate itself in a way that doesn't end in our extinction eventually. Even if climate change isn't the end of the world most people believe someday we are going to have to do something to adjust the environment to grow food or lower/raise temps simply to sustain our growth. Asteroids are part of the environment. Should we not use our technology to save ourselves even though an asteroid hit would be nature self-regulating us into vapor?

[myrkul]

Right now it's self regulating us right into waterworld or another ice age. With the human population growing so quickly there's no way for the Earth to self-regulate itself in a way that doesn't end in our extinction eventually. Even if climate change isn't the end of the world most people believe someday we are going to have to do something to adjust the environment to grow food or lower/raise temps simply to sustain our growth. Asteroids are part of the environment. Should we not use our technology to save ourselves even though an asteroid hit would be nature self-regulating us into vapor?

Well, all of those (except the asteroid) are good points to indicate we should change our behavior if we desire to continue living on this planet. My main complaint with environmentalism is that it isn't honest with itself. I can't remember whether it was this thread or the other that I called FirstAscent out on it, and of course, he dodged it. Environmentalists don't care about the earth, as you said. They care about making sure NYC isn't flooded. They don't want humans to go extinct, and neither do I. I think that's a noble goal. But preach it honestly, don't whine about the thistle-breasted nuthatch or whatever.

The asteroid, however would not be nature self-regulating, since by definition nothing we do here can affect the orbital trajectory of an asteroid way the hell out in one of the belts. That would be an aberration, and I would certainly advocate doing something about it.

But it is precisely because of these sorts of aberrations that I am strongly in favor of "moving out of mom's basement", and setting up shop elsewhere. If all the eggs are in one basket, it's far too easy for them all to get broken.

[tiberiandusk]

My goal is eventually start Marscoin since the network lag would make BTC mining on Mars impossible.

[myrkul]

My goal is eventually start Marscoin since the network lag would make BTC mining on Mars impossible.

Idea: Locate Bitcoin miners in space (iiiiin spaaaaaace!), at some relatively central Lagrange point, and use it for interplanetary settlements or transfers of wealth. Each planet, then would have its own coin, which you would then convert into when you land. Perpetual travelers could just keep their funds in Bitcoin, or convert small amounts as needed.

[dree12]

My goal is eventually start Marscoin since the network lag would make BTC mining on Mars impossible.

Idea: Locate Bitcoin miners in space (iiiiin spaaaaaace!), at some relatively central Lagrange point, and use it for interplanetary settlements or transfers of wealth. Each planet, then would have its own coin, which you would then convert into when you land. Perpetual travelers could just keep their funds in Bitcoin, or convert small amounts as needed.

Just like how currency works now. It hasn't changed for millennia, and aside from a 10-20 year range where Bitcoin will dominate, eventually different planets will have different currencies again.

Don't get used to Bitcoin being the universal currency, because that's about to change.

[asdf]

I do not advocate violence. But I do advocate rules and regulations. If in your world, even the idea of a rule or regulation means violence, then go ahead and think that way.

So what if I don't want to obey your rules and regulations? Violence!

Don't bullshit yourself; you're pointing guns in peoples faces and telling them to hug trees. You wonder why people here are ignoring your "education", because it's education at the point of a gun.

Try finding voluntary solutions to environmental issues. Using violence doesn't work. The government doesn't and never will give a fuck about the environment, except as an excuse to grab more power.

"I can't figure out how to solve this problem through persuasion and cooperation so I'll use violent force" -- FirstAscent

[Bitware]

Here is all the education you need to see whats happening with the global climate...

Earth's Temerature History from Sediment Cores(5mY):


Earth's Temerature History from Ice Cores (800kY):


... and to realize you are being indoctrinated, manipulated, propagandized, lied to, and stolen from to advance an agenda not based on bad science, but instead based on psychology. They know if they repeat themselves often enough, we eventually believe regardless of the accuracy, becasue we are stupid, apathetic, disinterested creatures who are irrational and can be easily scared into doing/approving/accepting things spoon fed to us. As to the bad science, I think that label is giving the science alot of credit. I prefer to think of it as treason, war crimes, and/or crimes against humanity, punishable by death. Which would certainly fix the problem of bastardized/bad science to advance an agenda that tries to steal wealth, land, auto-immunity, state sovereignty and the sovereignty of the world citizens.

Did you notice the massive increase in both temperature and the degree of temperature fluctuation ... before humans and our industrial technology existed?

The earth is alive and in a constant state of flux ever-changing. We can only affect the earth locally. Earth repairs itself. I am not saying we cant hurt it, but I am saying that the evidence shows that we have not hurt it.

[FirstAscent]

The "perfect" ecosystem -which would be what exactly? Even you couldn't possible assume to know this (gives new meaning to hubris, if that's your claim).

It's very easy to identify a perfect ecosystem. It's an area (the larger the better) that has yet to have been changed by humanity. Lands that were designated protected wilderness before humanity had any chance to do anything but really walk through it on foot are examples.

[FirstAscent]

People don't seem to realize that environmentalists aren't trying to save the Earth. They're trying to save our home. We don't have anywhere else to go at the moment. Once it's fucked, we're fucked.

Activities such as this have historically ended poorly.

What an absurd statement. Dam busting would be an example of an activity to revert a system back to its norm, and they don't end poorly.

[TheButterZone]

The "perfect" ecosystem -which would be what exactly? Even you couldn't possible assume to know this (gives new meaning to hubris, if that's your claim).

It's very easy to identify a perfect ecosystem. It's an area (the larger the better) that has yet to have been changed by humanity.

So again, the implied solution to all planet earth's "problems" (completely manufactured bullshit repeated over and over to brainwash people to agree to be subjected to every form of tyranny imaginable) is extinction of the human race. Mhm...

[myrkul]

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

[dree12]

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

That's exactly why it's in our interest to preserve it.

[myrkul]

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

That's exactly why it's in our interest to preserve it.

Preserve it, yes. By, say, not shitting in the water supply. That would be a good start. We could start using composting more, instead of throwing things in landfills. That would be great too. It would also provide fertilizer that we didn't have to strip-mine for. There's a huge difference between undoing change just because it was done by humans, and changing our behavior to fuck up the environment less.

[TheButterZone]

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

That's exactly why it's in our interest to preserve it.

Preserve/=destroying liberties and ultimately exterminating humanity.

[myrkul]

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

That's exactly why it's in our interest to preserve it.

Preserve/=destroying liberties and ultimately exterminating humanity.

Why are they equal? I don't follow your reasoning. With more liberty, our interest to preserve the ecosystem is exemplified, not degraded. For humanity to continue, the ecosystem we depend on cannot be compromised. People are well aware of this.

Effectively, increase of liberty implies or leads to an increase in environmental protection.

They're not, that was an attempt to approximate the character ≠.

You're agreeing with him.

[FirstAscent]

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

It's not my fault facts and knowledge annoy you. The sooner you stop trying to conflate ideology with terms, processes and general knowledge about the environment, the sooner you'll be able to digest the full picture, and then more powerfully derive solutions that are derived from your new found knowledge, rather than assumptions that conveniently dovetail with your ideology.

Your statement above is obviously driven by your ideology, rather than understanding. Can you think what the one huge difference is about humanity which justifies thinking about ecosystems sans humans?