CloudHands

This man deserves to be heard (or red it's subbed) because...

Recommended Posts

Perhaps becasue many of us dont like a video just being put up without some type  of sufficient description or discussion about it .

 

You cant expect people to watch just becasue you say we should .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nungali said:

Perhaps becasue many of us dont like a video just being put up without some type  of sufficient description or discussion about it .

 

You cant expect people to watch just becasue you say we should .

 

Of course, I don't expect everyone to watch it.

But that no one had enough curiosity to try it wasn't expected either !

 

This man is a specialist in energetic resources. What he explains with a precision I never seen before is how we went to consider energetic resources as unlimited, the current evolution of our utilization, where it leads us.

 

Science Po (politic) is an (french) elite institute of study and research in human science and international relationships but he's just a guest teaching a masterclass on his specialty. Surprisingly he's saying to these young lads how and why it's going to be hell on earth in the next decades and how our lives will be impacted.

 

Collapsology is in the air but that's not the point here it's more like a detailed global energetic analyze.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I admit it's maybe (too) difficult to follow. If I had something similar in english I'd have it posted instead... but I haven't it. I'm sure there are and some people here are aware of the happening shift.

 

It doesn't escape the fact that almost nobody post on these topics, because few want to know what's going on. Looks like few people are ready to see the uncertain future before it happens.

It's not sexy nor fun or light, you might feel overwhelmed and disarmed thus... this is happening. We (human) are too numerous, fossil energy addicted and collectively our conscious level is terrible. So this will happen as a logical result.

The covid which seem to scare many people -and sells million of firearms in the US- is nothing compared to what's waiting for us.

 

I can take the infos, look at the future in the eyes even laugh at it. I (clumsily) shared a bit of that toxic datas (and probably over pushed it) as my share of that burden.

 

Peace to all of you :)

Edited by CloudHands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep flying solo a little longer !

 

Given the fact that as specie we seem to do the maximum to deny/neglect the realness of the disaster of our "choices" -put aside the dramas- I think it's an interesting perspective that the human expansion/growth met its limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did give it a cursory listen.  I think any problem of "humans" must be addressed by first finding out who they are.  There's actually two different kinds.  Different not biologically (though even that is debatable) but in terms of the amount of energy they consume.  Here's the breakdown based on their energy consumption peculiarities:

 

the species that consumes 95% of all energy produced on earth is 1% of humans, and

the species that consumes 5% of all energy produced on Earth is 99% of humans.

 

Let's call the first species "the rich and powerful, who are continuously looking for ways to increase their wealth and power," and the second species "the ones continuously manipulated or forced into doing or not doing things that facilitate the objectives of the rich and powerful."

 

What he proposes is to shift the burden of reducing overall energy consumption on earth to those 99%, to that second (second rate)  species.  To make them consume less than the current 5% of all energy produced on earth.

 

In other words, he is essentially yet another proponent of placing the burden of the solution on those who are not the problem.  

 

Have you noticed that he, like everybody who is supposedly proposing a solution, still fails (or else meticulously avoids) to notice that it's one species that creates the problem and an altogether different species that is tasked with solving it?

 

I always do.  

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TM,

 

First I thank you because I think that you post out of pity for my soliloquy.

 

There is for me only one humane specie I see no reason for that distinction, some people just outplay... in an intolerable way. But maybe when transhumanism will be more noticeable that will be more arguable...

 

What are we talking about ?

Money ? There is clearly a problem of redistribution of the wealth, of course but that's a very different problem.

 

Na we talk about energy !

That's for instance the US consumption by sectors :

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/

Do you really think that 1% of the population uses 99% of the energy consumption ? That makes no sense to me.

Residential consumption only is already 21%,

transport is mostly individual and for the rest mostly goods that the specie buy or material to create these goods...,

industry is goods production, mostly for the population,

commercial is... well you got it!

 

I may have miss completely what you mean (two people seem to agreed with you so it may be...!), or you completely missed the point of the conference.

 

Jancovinci provide a detailed analysis, basically he says that one way or another it will stop. We may avoid the worst stopping CO² emissions sooner but we can't stop CO² emission running after economical growth (PIB = GDP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cursory viewing of the video is that this is still based off of tribal mentality rather than hive mentality, even if he's talking about the human species as a whole and the responsibilities needed to be taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CloudHands said:

 

Do you really think that 1% of the population uses 99% of the energy consumption ? That makes no sense to me.

 

 

That makes no sense to me either but it's the facts.  When all of the global activity came to a screeching halt with quarantines, billions of ordinary people no longer riding, driving, flying, sailing, operating machinery or having fun, one would expect a sizable difference in CO2 emissions following the accepted doctrine.  There wasn't any.

 

 All I can say is that I'm not coming from the place most people are coming from -- to wit, from having been informed exclusively by the media without any first hand access to the data that hasn't been cherry-picked and reinterpreted.  I had such access.  My father was a physicist working on those problems, first in the Soviet Union and then in an environmental company in the US.  My mother was a project leader on several Arctic natural gas pipelines.  And I worked as a technical writer for the oil and gas industries for several years.  I had to consult, in person, engineers and polar geologists and scientists on things I didn't understand in order to "get it" before writing technical stuff on the subject.  My job depended on my not writing nonsense.  

 

But I didn't post out of "pity for your soliloquy," LOL, I posted because I respect your respect for the presenter's analysis and your  willingness to use your own mind to draw your conclusions.  I had only one objection.  I believe this willingness, not just for you but for anyone, is nullified by one's mind having already been made up in advance.  I'm not saying I'm immune to the confirmation bias myself.  Just that my own confirmation bias is not derived from the same sources as yours.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has long, long been a trend of popularized "green" discourse that you and I, the little people, can solve environmental crises by our individual consumption choices. Recycle, ride a bike to work, buy dolphin-safe tuna, sponsor a patch of rainforest, etc. And while all that stuff can be good, if the vast majority of us did it, it wouldn't be nearly enough. As Taomeow says, this is a way to shift the burden onto the people who, individually or collectively, are the least responsible for the most destructive consequences of our civilization.

 

If we do have real responsibility, it is social, not a matter of atomized individual ethics, but a collective responsibility to organize our society in a radically different way.

 

My sympathies generally lie with the "social ecology" proposed by Murray Bookchin and friends- a decentralized, non-hierarchical, communal society. Ecological problems and social problems are seen as intertwined. Most recently these ideas have been popularized by the majority-Kurd Rojava administration in north Syria, where, simultaneous with defending their communities against ISIS and others, the people have sought to build a democratic, pluralist, feminist society. It's a noble experiment and worthy of study- emulation in some areas, criticism in others.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup -- I also believe the solution (if it is possible at all, this late in the day) could only be found along the lines of decentralized, non-hierarchical, and ideally matriarchal tribe-like communities.  As for the "matriarchal" part, that would certainly take time -- right now a matriarchal society is impossible, we had several thousand years to thoroughly forget what those are really like.  As things stand now, any women who have power and authority can only act as honorary males, rather than true matriarchs in any meaningful sense.  Women would have to unlearn that, and men would have to unlearn that -- before anyone who happens to be a female of power stops acting as a patriarchal hierarchical overlord and manages to turn off any of the patterns in the overall structure of patriarchy-derived power.   An anatomically female patriarch who was able to overcome this anatomical handicap by strictly adhering to the patriarchal, centralized, hierarchical paradigms is not it.  Matter of fact, an anatomically male matriarch would be my choice against her -- if he ever materializes in the real world, which is not, theoretically, impossible.  Like Laozi, you know, who identified with The Great Mother.  But when was the last time someone like Laozi had anything to do with politics?..

 

But no one is going to "give it" to us.  The centralized, hierarchical machinery is not there for the purpose of dismantling itself. 

 

Wish I had more hope for "us."  It really makes no sense that so many of "us" are so thoroughly bent on keeping the machine well-oiled --or else, as the only alternative we see, on breaking it down here and there only in order to assemble a bigger, more crushing one in its place.  But those are the facts...   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(smile)

 

I think that the confinement has had more impact than what you say but I don't want to argue on this point because I absolutely agree with you both on the fact that little people actions only will not stop the global warming.

 

I don't think I said something like that or even Jancovinci.

 

If think that the interesting part is how he shows how much the built civilization is coal and oil related how far we empowered ourselves at apparently low cost and we can't leave the cycle we're in without building an entirely different world. I don't think it will happen by our own will but forced by elements.

 

My burden (and also yours) is to know that when this foolish fossil energy cycle will be broken, when we will stop that garbage of fake-cooperation/real-economical-war it will be because we will be facing the consequences and that it can't go on anymore.
I'm not just talking about the end of our lifestyles but there will be famines on a scale that never happened. Famines start wars, genocides. Just picture Africa or Pakistan and India two nuclear countries...

 

If there is a way that will be a complete transformation before devastation, but it will not happen because we (the specie) are way too blind and fossil energy addicted.

 

That's what he says and that's what I wanted to talk about, not even to find solution, just because this is happening.

15 ? 20 ? 30 years ? This wave will start with us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the infos before, I had the intellectual understanding of the situation but few weeks ago, I felt it with my gut.

Edited by CloudHands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also feel it in my gut that we're being propelled headlong into interesting times, alas, but for a different reason.  I don't think a warmer Earth is what's going to do us in, in particular because all civilizations in our history, without a single exception, were spawned and reached their peak in the warmest periods of Earth's overall cold-as-hell history, and none of them in the coldest periods -- which constitute 99% of all history of Earth's existence.  Earth the Cosmic Snowball, that's what we're nicknamed in the galactic  presently unmentionable pockets of the scientific community. 

 

Even today, at the end of a brief 12-thousand-year-long period of thawing out in our Sun's warm hand (which the scientific consensus of a few decades ago saw as being just about over -- the ice age was overdue they warned, like clockwork, it never failed before and was just running a tiny bit late this time) --  even today, do you know how much of Earth is currently uninhabited due to being too cold?  Subtract 57% which is deserts and mountains out of 15.77 billion acres of the total uninhabited surface, that's your answer.  Not enough?  95% of the earth's population is currently concentrated on 10% of its surface.  (World Bank's World Development report, 2009).  Why exactly are "we" supposed to be desperate for solutions to a problem that, in the warming scenario and only in the warming scenario, will go away by itself:  the problem of scarcity of life-sustaining resources on planet Earth?.. 

 

An eight billion acre question.  

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

I also feel it in my gut that we're being propelled headlong into interesting times, alas, but for a different reason.  I don't think a warmer Earth is what's going to do us in, in particular because all civilizations in our history, without a single exception, were spawned and reached their peak in the warmest periods of Earth's overall cold-as-hell history, and none of them in the coldest periods -- which constitute 99% of all history of Earth's existence.  Earth the Cosmic Snowball, that's what we're nicknamed in the galactic  presently unmentionable pockets of the scientific community. 

 

Even today, at the end of a brief 12-thousand-year-long period of thawing out in our Sun's warm hand (which the scientific consensus of a few decades ago saw as being just about over -- the ice age was overdue they warned, like clockwork, it never failed before and was just running a tiny bit late this time) --  even today, do you know how much of Earth is currently uninhabited due to being too cold?  Subtract 57% which is deserts and mountains out of 15.77 billion acres of the total uninhabited surface, that's your answer.  Not enough?  95% of the earth's population is currently concentrated on 10% of its surface.  (World Bank's World Development report, 2009).  Why exactly are "we" supposed to be desperate for solutions to a problem that, in the warming scenario and only in the warming scenario, will go away by itself:  the problem of scarcity of life-sustaining resources on planet Earth?.. 

 

An eight billion acre question.  

 

 

That's the strangest thing I ever had red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CloudHands said:

 

 

That's the strangest thing I ever had red.

 

Happy to oblige. I've got way more where this comes from. :D

 

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Happy to oblige. I've got way more where this comes from. :D

 

 

To have a better understanding, do you consider all of it from an amoral view point or you expect no famine ?

Edited by CloudHands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

2 hours ago, CloudHands said:

 

To have a better understanding, do you consider all of it from an amoral view point or you expect no famine ?

 

No, not from an amoral standpoint.  On the contrary, I feel quite passionately non-indifferent about the amoral things happening in the world.  But our lists of perpetrators of those things, their causes, and helpful vs. harmful solutions are not likely to intersect. 

 

 I feel that many good people who tend to be naturally moral have been taken advantage of and manipulated into countless fake causes and away from countless real ones -- by entirely amoral sociopaths in charge of their indoctrination -- precisely because normal people do have emotions strongly connected to moral values.  This is what makes us vulnerable to being manipulated by those who have neither.  

 

As for famines, I think they are very likely.  There's many different ways to unleash them though if either the sociopathic individuals in charge or their economic decisions make them unavoidable.  As an example -- here's just one story about farmers being forced to destroy millions of pounds of potatoes as we speak:

https://www.businessinsider.com/potato-farmers-destroy-potatoes-covid19-even-in-a-food-shortage-2020-6

 

I've been following the supply chain closely since the beginning of the year (not the MSM but the conversations between people who actually work in the supply chain) and saw dozens of similar stories regarding other crops, livestock, and food processing/storage facilities.  It's a worldwide phenomenon, and countries that don't want to do it somehow wind up "revolutionized"-- somehow they start seeking liberation from this and that all of a sudden as soon as they don't want to play along. 

 

Can "something" cause devastating famines if things keep going where they're going?  Alas, I can't presently see how it can be avoided, though I may be wrong and hope I am.  Does the sociopathic system and its built-in cannibalistic machinery depend on climate adversities in order to unleash famines on humanity?..  Historically, it never did.

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest idiocy¬†perpetrated on the people of this earth is this ‚ÄĒ¬†

 

Quote

Then God said, ‚ÄúLet us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.‚ÄĚ


Without this lunacy the world would have stayed far more in balance, as it had for thousands of years prior to 0 CE. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dwai said:

I think the biggest idiocy¬†perpetrated on the people of this earth is this ‚ÄĒ¬†

 


Without this lunacy the world would have stayed far more in balance, as it had for thousands of years prior to 0 CE. 

 

another teaching from Manu that has been severely corrupted:

87. But in order to protect this universe He, the most resplendent one, assigned separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his mouth, arms, thighs, and feet.

88. To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing for their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms).

89. The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself to sensual pleasures;

90. The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land.

91. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites