Framing the question, is the cat actually there?
So the partial is thought to exist,
when and where it is observed.
What if the particle,
has in fact
The potential to be everywhere
Are our senses,
essentially misleading us?
We can only observe,
that which we can see, feel or touch.
That there are things
we cannot see.
Pissed off at your kids giving a damn?
EROI of energy available to do work peaked in 1920’s
burning 100million years worth of stored solar energy in 200 odd years is frying the planet, and the oceans – we all know this by now.
Consumption based overpopulation means using the biosphere at an unsustainable rate, outcompeting other species leading to the mass extinctions with
pollution taking care of the rest; plastic, inorganic solvents, heavy metals all creeping up the food chain.
The weapons industry is the single biggest contributor to Global GDP and climate change, in order that we might fight ourselves over religious, cultural or colour differences.
50 plus years of consumptive propaganda means that the addicts don’t want to stop even when the end result starts slapping them in the face. Specifically designed to distract you and distort your moral ethics so we can consume the last few good bits.
straight to the pointy end,
life is planetary.
The millennial aims to consume it, and
replace the real with a digital representation,
Which reality is within our grasp.
We’ve talked about value,
of the mercentalisation of everything.
Use the biotope to create waste
to destroy habitat and ecology,
in the hope of more success.
Discussions of goal state.
As we eat the planet,
maintenance costs are already more,
than the future can afford.
Distraction the paramour,
enamoured with our multicellular entanglement,
we view the destruction with amusement.
Life as information,
hardens to the screams.
We ought then to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow. Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it—an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis—it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes.
Economists spouting ceteris paribus do not even begin to glimpse the future their consumptive growth is causing.
We who see the effects of the cause are subject the same entropic constraints as the economy. Only we choose not to disregard the ecosystem that gives us life. The economy seems to think it can exist without life, who knows, maybe the future really is digital.
Dette er et spennende tema og det kunne har vært enda mer spennende om utvalget tok opp temaer rundt hvordan et nullutslippsamfunn kommer til å se ut. Dette er et av hovedmålene for staten Norge men det er lite snakk om hva salgs omstillinger som må skje for å komme dit hen. Man ser allerede i dagens Frankrike konsekvenser av å ta politisk valg uten å få med velgerne. Det er påfallende at man har nesten 100 prosent politisk støtte for et informasjon- og handlings- system som oppfordrer folk til å forbruke mer, er med på å opprette kjøpelyst som et avhengighet og som tynger fremtidige generasjoner i gjeld.
Det er godt kjent at forbruk i Norge tilsvarer minst 3 kloder, det er rett og slett ikke mulig å nå et eneste bærekraftig mål med dagens grad av bruk og kast. Man vet også at innhenting av fossil ressurser går mot den energiske grensen. EROI, energy return on (energy) investment av ‘fornybar’ kilder er meget lav og det finnes ikke flere kjente energikilder som kan drive veksten globalt. Norge er tjent med fornybar kilder men er dette også et politisk risiko ettersom andre Stater begynne å sulte etter energi?
Det er viktig at Staten begynne å ta opp tema blant folk for å vekke oppsikt og begynne samtalen om total -kostnad og -nytte av forbruksmodellen. Det er tross alt higen etter den økonomiske veksten som forårsaker forbrenning av fossiler (lagret solenergi) med CO2 som kjemiske restprodukt. Bærekraftighet i dagens Norge er basert på leveranser fra den globale markedet, hvordan ser denne ut uten fossil brensel eller med nullutslipp? Man burde stille spørsmål om hvilket grad av ressursforbruk er ønskelig og om dette kan dekkes innenfor den bio-basert sirkulær økonomien.
Takk for muligheten til å komme med innspill.
Privatisation of the means of producing capital is a tenet of capitalism, private owners make decisions based on higher profits, business growth, and market share i.e. returns to shareholders.
There is nothing inherently efficient about that other than that the decision making criteria rarely takes into account, let alone compensates for, the resources, energy and lives wasted. If these do not effect private profit then these are known as externalities and the cost is borne by society at large and the environment.
It is worth noting that as the global energy return on energy invested continues its long decline, the average standard of living only rose during the last two or three generations because of rising household debt.
The only thing capitalism is really any good at is consuming the resources of the future today through fractionally reserved debt arrangements. I think you will find that while mainstream politicians preach jobs and growth, schools are teaching about mountains of plastic in the ocean, mass global coral deaths, accelerating species eradication, global warming, ERoEI, and the impossibility of infinite growth based on the consumption of a finite natural resource stocks.
Maybe read some shit before spouting that stupid party line that the market will fix everything through efficiency. The market has effectively and efficiently gotten us to the brink of system collapse while espousing every known social corruption as a virtue.
It is really worthwhile to look at the first and second laws of thermodynamics and whether one should consider the biophysical reality of entropy in the context of economic growth.
But, generally speaking, economic growth is a human construct that uses the theory of infinite substitutability to deny any Liebig type limit. Not only that, but the prevailing economic theories ignore the externalities of production through a very liberal application of ceteris paribus as well as discounting the value of the future.
While much of this seems patently ridiculous in terms of the physical, chemical and biological laws of nature, infinite growth is a hypothesis that has a lot of appeal at a political level. To decouple from the growth paradigm would almost certainly immediately cause a global economic recession that would have very similar impacts to the actual effects of non-substitutability. There may simply no other way to sustain the wants of the current population.
The other part of the answer lies in the ability of capital to promote the interests of capital and pevert our social and cultural value systems. Modern propaganda, tries to teach us that the seven deadly sins are in fact virtues, that fiscal profit equates with social profit. Greed is good and economic self interest is the new political capital.
Because of this, and a number of other factors, the individual will to self sacrifice for future generations and to acknowledge limits to consumption simply does not exist in an enlightened democractic majority. The majority prefer to believe that everything will keep getting better and this is the message the political class sells.
something i shoudnt have
will google come get me,
even if i dont hit enter?
Being afraid that one is not explicit enough
So, the Basel mode
main purpose being to demonstrate
how and why discourse analysis
can never satisfy the scientific approach.
We all talk
And over again
You won’t believe you’re on the eve of destruction.
So you continue with the discourse
About the pathway that takes you there.
Humans invented anthropogenic moralism in order to establish a framework for interacting with each other and with the rest of the planet. This is why we have a moral diversity, because nature is diverse and humans are products of this.
Moralism has however, become largely anthropomorphic and in my opinion this is the greatest moral challenge of our time. We place our highest values on consumption of the natural world without empathising with the implications of this consumption for other forms of life.
If moral absolutism exists, and I think it should, it would be focussed on establishing a true value system that incorporates the impact the entirety of a product’s production chain has on life, rather than simply focussing on the human desire for the final product.
We have been given every indication that our consumption based model is morally absurd as it destroys life, and the ability of the planet to maintain life.
And yet we are increasingly devoted to it as our morals are corrupted to embrace the values of; Lust, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Pride, Envy and Gluttony.