UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
My dude, your argument boils down to "this is the way we've always done it so this is the way it must be".
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN'T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
My dude, your argument boils down to "this is the way we've always done it so this is the way it must be".
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN'T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,…
Of course the world would continue to turn.
That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?
Yes. It very well might be.
But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break.
The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
And that’s a good thing.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level.
The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies.
Just take a look at AI at this point.
AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations.
Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Same with medical advancements,
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn't STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I'm not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn't STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
Sure it would. But it probably wouldn’t change my standpoint.
I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I'm not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Yes, unfortunately I am extremely stubborn. Sorry.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
Because rockets are boring.
Bubble and stuff is just extraordinary craftsmanship and black matter will take some time. And I overall hate relativity theory. I am hoping for gravitons. Wave functions rock.
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
Not stupid. Some sciences simply are idiotic. Do you have any idea how much I hate biologists. Entitled brats. Some of them have an extreme superiority complex.
And don’t get my talking about physicists. Buch of weirdos.
You should see physicists interact with biologists. It like two different species encountering each other. But communication attempts are futile.
Yes, unfortunately I am extremely stubborn. Sorry.
Fair, you do you mate
Because rockets are boring.
Bubble and stuff is just extraordinary craftsmanship and black matter will take some time. And I overall hate relativity theory. I am hoping for gravitons. Wave functions rock.
Well, have fun with that, I will stop arguing.
Not stupid. Some sciences simply are idiotic. Do you have any idea how much I hate biologists. Entitled brats. Some of them have an extreme superiority complex.
And don’t get my talking about physicists. Buch of weirdos.
You should see physicists interact with biologists. It like two different species encountering each other. But communication attempts are futile.
llmaooo
you should do science-themed standup
I only know three biologists and they are lovely people. Never seen them interact with physicists though so you may be right.
And sooner or later I will hopefully have children.
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant 'innovator' CEO's who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO's who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
lol i think they said the same thing about the Titanic sinking. also the submarine guy said the same thing about it imploding.
Hmm 🤔
also all evidence that’s not conservative propaganda points to us hitting the worst possible outcomes when it comes to climate change. Read the IPCC reports and the worst case scenarios listed within. That’s what’s going to happen over the next ~40 years
I have been reading about the worst case scenario.
But even then the oceans would heat up, Oxygen saturation would diminish, big fish would die, algae would thrive on higher CO2 levels and buffer climate change at some point.
Humanity and most animals on land should be capable to survive to this buffer point.
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Climate scientists disagree with you.
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I'll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
You sound like a fragile personality. You might be in the wrong occupation.
Or you might be talking bullshit. Because I doubt that you would have internet on a submarine.
Shipmate, I am a Navigation Electronic Technician First Class Petty Officer, fully qualified in both submarines and in my rating. I have been on five strategic alert deterrent patrols over the last three years. I've been through fires, flooding, and steam line ruptures. When we set condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch during WSRT, I was the one at the consoles conducting the procedures to do so. I've been a helmsman, planesman, Strategic Navigation Technician, and Quartermaster of the Watch.
Of course I wouldn't have internet while submerged or at sea. Have you ever heard of in-port periods?
Fragile personality or not, I'm the sailor at the switch. What have you done with your life, shipmate?
Don't let the troll get to you... I've had someone on here a week or so ago tell me I was lying about my expertise. It's almost like they're all taking lessons from the same people.
Thanks. And yeah, they're probably just trying the tried and true War Thunder and Discord method. Or they're not taking lessons from the same people, they are the same people. Who knows?
I still think you are lying. Or you are incredibly stupid. Because your identity and your job should be kept secret.
My grandparents were military engineers in the Soviet Union. Do you think anyone knew that?
Of course not, because they were instructed to not talk about it. As should you, in case you are the real deal.
I myself have followed the path of my father, currently studying to become a chemist in Munich. One ore year to go.
Shipmate, if you look in my post history I literally did an AMA about my profession about a month ago, and a Machinists Mate Chief even jumped in to contribute. I haven't disclosed any ships movement, naval nuclear propulsion information or even controlled unclassified information. I keep my personal electronic devices physically far, far away from any work device, and we never cross the streams, as the saying goes.
It’s still something that I wouldn’t tell people on the internet.
Especially if you have family. The Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis,… you just elevated the chances that they know about you. And now they also know that you are the sharing kind. A little bit bragging.
Don’t make yourself a target. Not the smartest thing to do.
Sister's in the marine corps and so is her husband. They can take care of themselves.
I'll take your advice into consideration. Still, you have again reminded me why I don't feel the burden of my duty too much. The existence of such organizations only hardens my resolve to flip the switch when the time comes.
Sister's in the marine corps and so is her husband. They can take care of themselves.
Against Russian agents with Nowitschock or North Koreans using poison as well? I doubt that.
I'll take your advice into consideration. Still, you have again reminded me why I don't feel the burden of my duty too much. The existence of such organizations only hardens my resolve to flip the switch when the time comes.
You are a troll. Cannot take you and your persona serious anymore. There is not a single soldier this irrational on this world.
A troll? Interesting. I'll let my chief and division know. I'd invite you to visit NSB Kings Bay sometime, but you'd get denied at the front gate, let alone the marines at Checkpoint Charlie and the waterfront gate. And I'm a sailor, not a soldier. Soldiers are Army only.
And for the record, best of luck in your studies. I hold no personal animosity, and a great deal of professional respect, for my counterparts in other militaries. We all have a job to do. If that means one of us has to shoot torpedoes at the other, we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. I do think, however, that you should never underestimate the willingness of the US to go to great lengths to do what it thinks is necessary.
And for the record, best of luck in your studies. I hold no personal animosity, and a great deal of professional respect, for my counterparts in other militaries.
I do not hold any grudge towards you as well.
We all have a job to do. If that means one of us has to shoot torpedoes at the other, we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. I do think, however, that you should never underestimate the willingness of the US to go to great lengths to do what it thinks is necessary.
Wars are fought in many levels. And the Ukraine war has already been lost. A financial Desaster to the west. No military power will change that.
Current surveys indicate republicans to be in power next year. And in Europe we also see a shifting in opinion in Schweden, France and Germany towards parties that roan further right and are against weapon deliveries into Ukraine. Quite contrary, they are pro Russia in many ways.
And I don’t judge. But if this development further continues, then all the money wasted on military support is gone. And Russia wins. In a world filled with intercontinental missiles, a war is won politically and economically.
So no matter how wiling and ready the US is, military power cannot rival with economical and political strategies.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia's case by the war. America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex. Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term. Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable. Demographic collapses are not.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia's case by the war.
Due to immense migration, demographic change is a thing of the past now. France, Germany and other western European countries no longer face this problem. On the other side it comes with new problems, as failed integration has become a huge problem.
And considering Russia, the country has one big ass infantry. And in the Ukraine war, Russia has yet to call for total mobilisation.
And the west, even with the help of the US did not yet manage to deliver enough ammunition and weaponry to push back the Russian forces.
For me that’s an indicator that Russia is more capable of actual war than the West.
Especially the US had many military missions in the past decades and most of them failed. Afghanistan is just one of the many failed attempts of military control.
The US military has shown not to be capable to win wars, but only maintain them.
America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex.
Well and so did the Russians. The west has more specialised and modern weapons, it these have now proven to be too complicate to be produced in sufficient masses.
Russia using old tech with easier produced weaponry has shown to be much more resilient than expected.
Making use of the oldschool Propeller for bombs instead of high tech laser measured ignition timers, has proven to be just as effective.
The US military has been scammed in many ways by weapon manufacturers into buying over complicated tech for simple applications.
Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term.
If your superiors were involved in the last decades military operations of the US, then their word shouldn’t be taken too serious.
Afghanistan is just the latest failure of along series of failures. And currently it seems, like the US will fail in Ukraine as well, even before sending troops.
Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable.
Financial ups and downs can cripple a country’s economy so immensely, that they change a country’s direction for years later.
There is no military without tax payers. And in a broken economy, there are not many willing tax payers.
Demographic collapses are not.
It can be corrected with migration, even though migration poses its own new problems.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an "insurgency". With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all?
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running.
Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others.
Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Hey guy uhhh
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere.
And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire.
And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
LOL.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I'd also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most "free market" countries and the countries these exploit. We have "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else," as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
Most leftists in the U.S. are democratic socialists, social democrats, are some flavor of anarchists; not authoritarian socialists.. Most do not think violence is necessary, except for protection against the increasingly fascist right-wing. Many believe it's possible to move closer to a socialist-like society by building mutual-aid networks and communities, and promoting candidates for government positions that align with their values; not through a violent revolution.
And yes, I would prefer systems closer to Scandinavian countries, which the right-wing here calls socialism. Ideally, I would like to see some kind of real socialism where the workers own the means of production (factories, stores, farms, etc) and controls it through democratic processes, not the investor-shareholders or the government. I think the term is anarcho-syndicalism, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Oh brother
I might lighten you up a bit.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the "They can just sell their house and move" thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
This is the "war and famine" part of climate change that people don't often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn't going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it's from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad...
And you're right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the "They can just sell their house and move" thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
My family fled several times in the past. During WW2 they fled from Ukraine to Poland, and when the Russians came, then they fled back to Germany. And then years later from east Germany to west Germany. Leaving everything behind each time. Every time was a goddamn reset. So what. It’s all about survival. Rebuilding has always been possible.
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
So the problem is and always has been overpopulation. Another screw we should have adjusted in the past but refused to do so.
This is the "war and famine" part of climate change that people don't often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn't going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it's from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad...
I know about this part. And it is the only part that concerns me.
And you're right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
As humans, it has always been our responsibility to adapt. Not the other way around.
Every being on this world influences the world itself. We cannot live without influencing our surroundings.
Wow, how much time did you waste on this one? Keep going, maybe I'll actually read the next one.
Wow, how much time did you waste on this one?
Too much.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
You successfully stole a few minutes of my life. Time I could have spent on studying and working further to my ultimate goal: becoming the next German dictator.
(••) ( ••)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
Keep going, maybe I'll actually read the next one.
First I need some unrealistic opinions to react to.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ Some more of your beliefs will do just fine.
The 'future' is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn't make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you're talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It's all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of 'termination shock' and countless others.
It is already done.
And the consequences are relatively easy to estimate. Much easier actually than the complex mechanics of world climate change.
Firstly, that isn't 'already done'. It's a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.
Secondly,
Radical solutions such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles could theoretically help reduce temperatures, but could also have major unforeseen consequences, and many experts fear what could happen were a country to experiment with such techniques.
This is from your source ^
So is this:
In a paper last year, researchers at National Taiwan University said that the "lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of 'rain stealing' between neighboring regions," both within China and with other countries. They also pointed to the lack of a "system of checks and balances to facilitate the implementation of potentially controversial projects."
Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.
Well, there is always the option to use sunsails in orbit. These could also be motorised and adapt to the needed parameters.
There are a ton of solutions. And the weather and climate engineering is just one of them.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn't be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
I agree there are many solutions. I don't think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Well, a fee could theoretically be possible.
Farmers with plants that need shadow could pay for shielding. In the end the end consumer pays the price.
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn't be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
👍
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
Let me rephrase it: it’s boring. Nada used old ass Russian rockets for years. So there is not much innovation there anyway.
I agree there are many solutions. I don't think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions.
Such money could also be invested into sun shield projects.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
I agree on the tech solutions. Let’s see them being implemented before chopping on the foundation of our economics.
I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions.
A lot of those are scams or of questionable value unfortunately
I know that some people claim that. But in their mind they would rather stop airlines and flight overall.
And since this is unreasonable, compensation should be the second best step in your mind?
Because I don’t care. But from your standpoint it should be better than no compensation, right?
I'm actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it's much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys.
Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it's slower. We can make them much better and safer with today's tech.
I don't like the 'green offset' thing because it makes it look like we're 'doing something' when it's actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.
Ok Raiden
Who or what is Raiden?
Your mom
Is this some kind of who’s joe joke? Did I just fail?
Joe mama
Ribbit
I have no motive other than my own profit. And I do not profit from a conversation here, other than to quench my thirst for discussion.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
... A simple "wrong" would've just been fine....
Edit:
for those who missed the reference
Nah I like this better
.... It's the response that Billy Madison gives to that quote....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
My dude, your argument boils down to "this is the way we've always done it so this is the way it must be".
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN'T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191
https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s
Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
And that’s a good thing.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn't STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I'm not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
Sure it would. But it probably wouldn’t change my standpoint.
Yes, unfortunately I am extremely stubborn. Sorry.
Because rockets are boring. Bubble and stuff is just extraordinary craftsmanship and black matter will take some time. And I overall hate relativity theory. I am hoping for gravitons. Wave functions rock.
Not stupid. Some sciences simply are idiotic. Do you have any idea how much I hate biologists. Entitled brats. Some of them have an extreme superiority complex. And don’t get my talking about physicists. Buch of weirdos. You should see physicists interact with biologists. It like two different species encountering each other. But communication attempts are futile.
Fair, you do you mate
Well, have fun with that, I will stop arguing.
llmaooo you should do science-themed standup
I only know three biologists and they are lovely people. Never seen them interact with physicists though so you may be right.
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant 'innovator' CEO's who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO's who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
lol i think they said the same thing about the Titanic sinking. also the submarine guy said the same thing about it imploding.
Hmm 🤔
also all evidence that’s not conservative propaganda points to us hitting the worst possible outcomes when it comes to climate change. Read the IPCC reports and the worst case scenarios listed within. That’s what’s going to happen over the next ~40 years
I have been reading about the worst case scenario. But even then the oceans would heat up, Oxygen saturation would diminish, big fish would die, algae would thrive on higher CO2 levels and buffer climate change at some point. Humanity and most animals on land should be capable to survive to this buffer point.
Climate scientists disagree with you.
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I'll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
You sound like a fragile personality. You might be in the wrong occupation.
Or you might be talking bullshit. Because I doubt that you would have internet on a submarine.
Shipmate, I am a Navigation Electronic Technician First Class Petty Officer, fully qualified in both submarines and in my rating. I have been on five strategic alert deterrent patrols over the last three years. I've been through fires, flooding, and steam line ruptures. When we set condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch during WSRT, I was the one at the consoles conducting the procedures to do so. I've been a helmsman, planesman, Strategic Navigation Technician, and Quartermaster of the Watch.
Of course I wouldn't have internet while submerged or at sea. Have you ever heard of in-port periods?
Fragile personality or not, I'm the sailor at the switch. What have you done with your life, shipmate?
Don't let the troll get to you... I've had someone on here a week or so ago tell me I was lying about my expertise. It's almost like they're all taking lessons from the same people.
Thanks. And yeah, they're probably just trying the tried and true War Thunder and Discord method. Or they're not taking lessons from the same people, they are the same people. Who knows?
I still think you are lying. Or you are incredibly stupid. Because your identity and your job should be kept secret. My grandparents were military engineers in the Soviet Union. Do you think anyone knew that? Of course not, because they were instructed to not talk about it. As should you, in case you are the real deal. I myself have followed the path of my father, currently studying to become a chemist in Munich. One ore year to go.
Shipmate, if you look in my post history I literally did an AMA about my profession about a month ago, and a Machinists Mate Chief even jumped in to contribute. I haven't disclosed any ships movement, naval nuclear propulsion information or even controlled unclassified information. I keep my personal electronic devices physically far, far away from any work device, and we never cross the streams, as the saying goes.
It’s still something that I wouldn’t tell people on the internet.
Especially if you have family. The Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis,… you just elevated the chances that they know about you. And now they also know that you are the sharing kind. A little bit bragging.
Don’t make yourself a target. Not the smartest thing to do.
Sister's in the marine corps and so is her husband. They can take care of themselves.
I'll take your advice into consideration. Still, you have again reminded me why I don't feel the burden of my duty too much. The existence of such organizations only hardens my resolve to flip the switch when the time comes.
Against Russian agents with Nowitschock or North Koreans using poison as well? I doubt that.
You are a troll. Cannot take you and your persona serious anymore. There is not a single soldier this irrational on this world.
A troll? Interesting. I'll let my chief and division know. I'd invite you to visit NSB Kings Bay sometime, but you'd get denied at the front gate, let alone the marines at Checkpoint Charlie and the waterfront gate. And I'm a sailor, not a soldier. Soldiers are Army only.
And for the record, best of luck in your studies. I hold no personal animosity, and a great deal of professional respect, for my counterparts in other militaries. We all have a job to do. If that means one of us has to shoot torpedoes at the other, we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. I do think, however, that you should never underestimate the willingness of the US to go to great lengths to do what it thinks is necessary.
I do not hold any grudge towards you as well.
Wars are fought in many levels. And the Ukraine war has already been lost. A financial Desaster to the west. No military power will change that.
Current surveys indicate republicans to be in power next year. And in Europe we also see a shifting in opinion in Schweden, France and Germany towards parties that roan further right and are against weapon deliveries into Ukraine. Quite contrary, they are pro Russia in many ways.
And I don’t judge. But if this development further continues, then all the money wasted on military support is gone. And Russia wins. In a world filled with intercontinental missiles, a war is won politically and economically.
So no matter how wiling and ready the US is, military power cannot rival with economical and political strategies.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia's case by the war. America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex. Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term. Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable. Demographic collapses are not.
Due to immense migration, demographic change is a thing of the past now. France, Germany and other western European countries no longer face this problem. On the other side it comes with new problems, as failed integration has become a huge problem.
And considering Russia, the country has one big ass infantry. And in the Ukraine war, Russia has yet to call for total mobilisation. And the west, even with the help of the US did not yet manage to deliver enough ammunition and weaponry to push back the Russian forces. For me that’s an indicator that Russia is more capable of actual war than the West.
Especially the US had many military missions in the past decades and most of them failed. Afghanistan is just one of the many failed attempts of military control. The US military has shown not to be capable to win wars, but only maintain them.
Well and so did the Russians. The west has more specialised and modern weapons, it these have now proven to be too complicate to be produced in sufficient masses. Russia using old tech with easier produced weaponry has shown to be much more resilient than expected. Making use of the oldschool Propeller for bombs instead of high tech laser measured ignition timers, has proven to be just as effective. The US military has been scammed in many ways by weapon manufacturers into buying over complicated tech for simple applications.
If your superiors were involved in the last decades military operations of the US, then their word shouldn’t be taken too serious. Afghanistan is just the latest failure of along series of failures. And currently it seems, like the US will fail in Ukraine as well, even before sending troops.
Financial ups and downs can cripple a country’s economy so immensely, that they change a country’s direction for years later.
There is no military without tax payers. And in a broken economy, there are not many willing tax payers.
It can be corrected with migration, even though migration poses its own new problems.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an "insurgency". With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running. Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others. Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Hey guy uhhh
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere. And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire. And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
LOL.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I'd also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most "free market" countries and the countries these exploit. We have "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else," as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
Most leftists in the U.S. are democratic socialists, social democrats, are some flavor of anarchists; not authoritarian socialists.. Most do not think violence is necessary, except for protection against the increasingly fascist right-wing. Many believe it's possible to move closer to a socialist-like society by building mutual-aid networks and communities, and promoting candidates for government positions that align with their values; not through a violent revolution.
And yes, I would prefer systems closer to Scandinavian countries, which the right-wing here calls socialism. Ideally, I would like to see some kind of real socialism where the workers own the means of production (factories, stores, farms, etc) and controls it through democratic processes, not the investor-shareholders or the government. I think the term is anarcho-syndicalism, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Oh brother
I might lighten you up a bit.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
This is like the "They can just sell their house and move" thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
This is the "war and famine" part of climate change that people don't often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn't going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it's from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad...
And you're right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
My family fled several times in the past. During WW2 they fled from Ukraine to Poland, and when the Russians came, then they fled back to Germany. And then years later from east Germany to west Germany. Leaving everything behind each time. Every time was a goddamn reset. So what. It’s all about survival. Rebuilding has always been possible.
So the problem is and always has been overpopulation. Another screw we should have adjusted in the past but refused to do so.
I know about this part. And it is the only part that concerns me.
As humans, it has always been our responsibility to adapt. Not the other way around. Every being on this world influences the world itself. We cannot live without influencing our surroundings.
Wow, how much time did you waste on this one? Keep going, maybe I'll actually read the next one.
Too much.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
You successfully stole a few minutes of my life. Time I could have spent on studying and working further to my ultimate goal: becoming the next German dictator.
(••) ( ••)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
First I need some unrealistic opinions to react to.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ Some more of your beliefs will do just fine.
The 'future' is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn't make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you're talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It's all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of 'termination shock' and countless others.
Have a look at the scientific literature: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-Smith-Wagner/e4e5a78335eda8c16557b32af915798b06091362#cited-papers
Would you seriously risk the future of life on Earth on something this experimental?
I fear this arrogance will kill a lot of people and cause a lot of suffering.
Also
This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn't turned out well in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1 It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.
Somehow double posted. So this is now a blank comment.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modification-cloud-seeding-intl-hnk/index.html
It is already done. And the consequences are relatively easy to estimate. Much easier actually than the complex mechanics of world climate change.
Firstly, that isn't 'already done'. It's a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.
Secondly,
This is from your source ^
So is this:
Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.
Well, there is always the option to use sunsails in orbit. These could also be motorised and adapt to the needed parameters.
There are a ton of solutions. And the weather and climate engineering is just one of them.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn't be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
I agree there are many solutions. I don't think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
Well, a fee could theoretically be possible. Farmers with plants that need shadow could pay for shielding. In the end the end consumer pays the price.
👍
Let me rephrase it: it’s boring. Nada used old ass Russian rockets for years. So there is not much innovation there anyway.
I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions. Such money could also be invested into sun shield projects.
I agree on the tech solutions. Let’s see them being implemented before chopping on the foundation of our economics.
A lot of those are scams or of questionable value unfortunately
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts
I know that some people claim that. But in their mind they would rather stop airlines and flight overall.
And since this is unreasonable, compensation should be the second best step in your mind?
Because I don’t care. But from your standpoint it should be better than no compensation, right?
I'm actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it's much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys. Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it's slower. We can make them much better and safer with today's tech.
I don't like the 'green offset' thing because it makes it look like we're 'doing something' when it's actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.
Ok Raiden
Who or what is Raiden?
Your mom
Is this some kind of who’s joe joke? Did I just fail?
Joe mama
Ribbit
I have no motive other than my own profit. And I do not profit from a conversation here, other than to quench my thirst for discussion.
So please refrain from accusing me of propaganda.