Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

[Sounder]

by justdrew » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:06 pm

well, ruppert's all-or-nothing agenda worked out real good for him didn't it?

They day I stake my survival and the survival of 'most life on earth' on even MANY humans "evolving" is they day I give up. Not. Going. To. Happen. and even if it were to happen, no one has any idea what that would even look like or accomplish. I have little interest in reincarnating as deep soil bacteria or a thermal vent tube worm. Someone please point to one living example of this evolved-human please.

This is a problem of cautious pessimism, it leads to stilted expressions of imagination.

The idea that this is all somehow "beyond" us is nuts defeatist, doom-porn.

Oh it’s not ‘beyond’ us, but it is beyond the potentials of scientific materialism.

This is a solvable problem. IF we act.

Scientific materialism can always be counted on to provide solutions, but are they really solutions?

so let's agree on 'evolving' enough at least to fucking do something.

The question remains, what something?

keep in mind, I'm absolutely talking about reshaping the nature of the economy and down-sizing free market capitalism extensively, but some 'command and control' is called for here too. People can work together very well indeed, when the economic system isn't designed to pit them against one another.

But our economic system is designed to pit us against each other. It is so because our split model of reality has led to scientific materialism and that will always and forever, as long as it hold sway on our imaginations, treat the ‘other’ as a threat.

As it stands though, the only ‘command and control’ going on is stuff like this:
http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/06/08/ ... 5ZsOijb58E

...... Is it a coincidence that the MCC delayed its initial agreed aid payments following the announcement by the El Salvador Government that they were banning the use of Glyphosate (Roundup) and 52 other dangerous chemicals in September 2013?

Glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide sales are the main money earner for the Biotech industry worldwide and the chemical is also the base of the whole system that allows GM Crops to be grown.

The El Salvadoran Government’s ban on Glyphosate came amidst a mysterious kidney disease that is killing thousands of the region’s agricultural laborers. Central America’s health ministries signed a declaration in March 2013 citing the ailment as a top public health priority and committing to a series of steps to combat its reach, the Center of Public Intergrity revealed.

Over the last two years, the Center for Public Integrity has examined how a rare type of chronic kidney disease (CKDu) is killing thousands of agricultural workers along Central America’s Pacific Coast, as well as in Sri Lanka and India. Scientists have yet to definitively uncover the cause of the malady, although emerging evidence points to toxic heavy metals contained in pesticides as a potential culprit.

Sri Lankan scientist Dr Jayasumana recently released a study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health that proposes a link between Roundup (aka Glyphosate) and CKDu.....

the changes that are required will be opposed though, and there's zero time to tolerate that.

The changes that are required are opposed by committed materialists, but I assume that they are good folk, just misguided. Breaking the spell that social conformity places on folk may take a bit of time, as framed by our puny concepts thereof, but it’s a project with legs so one can be happy to tolerate all kinds of resistance.

Ruppert got where he did because he refused to answer for himself the question I asked him in 2002, "after we've won (...) what does the world look like?"

Rather than come up with practical answers, he turned to mysticism. which mind you, has it's place, but is in no way a substitute for actually envisioning and working on a viable future. It's that gap that leads to inconsolable despair.

I agree that Ruppert took a false trail by turning to mysticism, (if he did, I don’t really know), but it can be suggested that he did not so much ‘refuse’ to answer, rather he could not answer because he had no answer.

I however do have an answer that is not ‘mystical’ in the least. ‘After we’ve won (…) the world will look like a continuum where we see the interplay and connections between the implicate (pre-manifest) and the explicate (manifest) and where we see how our points of focus determine the manner of our manifestations. Focus on relations will show the other as critical to ones own development. This will be easy-peasy when we recognize that past focus on objects turns the other into a threat.

[minime]

obviously the need for urgent and massive carbon sequestration is as clear as can be.

and swarms of millions of parasol satellites giving the poles some shade.

these two activities must immediately become the primary guiding principle of human civilization, and anyone or anything that stands in the way of this reorganization must be utterly and remorselessly destroyed.

It's hard to follow anyone who advocates murder.

[Sounder]

There must be a board 'rule' about this, but maybe it only applies to right-wing nutjobs.

[justdrew]

obviously the need for urgent and massive carbon sequestration is as clear as can be.

and swarms of millions of parasol satellites giving the poles some shade.

these two activities must immediately become the primary guiding principle of human civilization, and anyone or anything that stands in the way of this reorganization must be utterly and remorselessly destroyed.

It's hard to follow anyone who advocates murder.

it's called self-defense, even the Buddha accepts the right of self-defense. and if you can defend yourself, you can defend others and life forms that can not defend themselves.

Perhaps you're not really in mental contact with the gravity of the situation.

[minime]

obviously the need for urgent and massive carbon sequestration is as clear as can be.

and swarms of millions of parasol satellites giving the poles some shade.

these two activities must immediately become the primary guiding principle of human civilization, and anyone or anything that stands in the way of this reorganization must be utterly and remorselessly destroyed.

It's hard to follow anyone who advocates murder.

it's called self-defense, even the Buddha accepts the right of self-defense. and if you can defend yourself, you can defend others and life forms that can not defend themselves.

Perhaps you're not really in mental contact with the gravity of the situation.

For the record then...

I have passed along your recommendation...

https://tips.fbi.gov/

though I imagine you are on their watchlist already.

[justdrew]

well fuck you too asshole. That is the most laughable thing I have ever seen.

prey tell, who the hell do you think was threatened?

Personally, I think you should be banned for that.

[82_28]

well fuck you too asshole. That is the most laughable thing I have ever seen.

prey tell, who the hell do you think was threatened?

Personally, I think you should be banned for that.

Since Drew maintains the nuts and bolts of this site, minime, you are now guilty by association. I'm sure every member here appreciates your efforts to do either something fake or real. Whatever it is, you're in the running for member of the year! I can't wait for the hallowed ceremony.

[justdrew]

I assume he's now busy tipping them off about Scott Esk and the thousands just like him at the moment.

[Sounder]

minime » 10 Jun 2014 06:27 wrote:

justdrew » Thu May 22, 2014 8:44 pm wrote:obviously the need for urgent and massive carbon sequestration is as clear as can be.

and swarms of millions of parasol satellites giving the poles some shade.

these two activities must immediately become the primary guiding principle of human civilization, and anyone or anything that stands in the way of this reorganization must be utterly and remorselessly destroyed.

It's hard to follow anyone who advocates murder.

it's called self-defense, even the Buddha accepts the right of self-defense. and if you can defend yourself, you can defend others and life forms that can not defend themselves.

Perhaps you're not really in mental contact with the gravity of the situation.

Thank-you justdrew for showing so ably, some shortcomings of scientific materialism.

Who gets the contract for one million parasol satellites, gotta be someone big, -maybe Carlyle Group?

While poor people pay because they are more sensitive to rises in fixed costs.

This shit is an excellent prop or excuse to not care about the hard lives of poor folk.

Defend others? Pah, you can’t even defend yourself.


I just can’t believe someone could write such a thing, wow, (effectively this is to say) we can keep this Western Exceptionalism thing if we ‘simply’ sequester our carbon and put up a million parasol satellites, you know,-we will just neutralize our carbon footprint.

these two activities must immediately become the primary guiding principle of human civilization, and anyone or anything that stands in the way of this reorganization must be utterly and remorselessly destroyed.

This is the sort of thing that makes me feel obligated to put the challenge to social conformity and the mental distortions it causes.

[Ben D]

...easy just drew...your advocating the utter and remorseless destruction of anyone who stands in the way of your proposed primary guiding principles of human civilization is really over the top. I know you really don't mean it...so don't say things like that!

[justdrew]

...easy just drew...your advocating the utter and remorseless destruction of anyone who stands in the way of your proposed primary guiding principles of human civilization is really over the top. I know you really don't mean it...so don't say things like that!

I don't like it, but I don't see any other way we're going to address this. Something like 50% of all human effort is going to need to be directed at recovery, remediation and relocation, etc. the other 50% will be involved in supporting the work of the other 50%, doing things like producing the necessities of life and educating and so on.

I'm certainly not in line to become the head of this new State that would execute such policies, but someones will be, what else can be done? What other way than harnessing in a coordinated fashion the entire output of human effort can be done? Ben, we know you would do nothing as you 'disbelieve' but I'd wager you'd still be willing to play a role in it. 0% involuntary unemployment, significant leveling of incomes, etc. It's not all bad.

and I would think it's obvious that working against such activities would be considered something "beyond terrorism" - who would stand for it?

Sounder - a "big company" will be nearly meaningless, such enterprises would be run and "owned" (though ownership would be a semi-pointless term) by the State on behalf of future human and non-human generations... which are otherwise, apparently, doomed.

If someone has a better plan, bring it on, let's hear some specifics.

consider a more limited thought experiment...

you walk home and find your house has been attacked by some human-hulk of a man, your family and pets are now stuck inside, windows and doors nailed shut etc. The attacker has now spread gas all over the house and is about to light it up. You don't have a chance of restraining this man, he's huge, you're no fighter. but... he left his gun laying on the sidewalk and it's right next to you. Are you seriously not going to pull that trigger?

I don't know of any moral calculus that would say you shouldn't.

The only reason we're not ALREADY there, is the uncertainty. As that evaporates like so much arctic ice, things are going to get weird, fast.

[Ben D]

...easy just drew...your advocating the utter and remorseless destruction of anyone who stands in the way of your proposed primary guiding principles of human civilization is really over the top. I know you really don't mean it...so don't say things like that!

I don't like it, but I don't see any other way we're going to address this. Something like 50% of all human effort is going to need to be directed at recovery, remediation and relocation, etc. the other 50% will be involved in supporting the work of the other 50%, doing things like producing the necessities of life and educating and so on.

I'm certainly not in line to become the head of this new State that would execute such policies, but someones will be, what else can be done? What other way than harnessing in a coordinated fashion the entire output of human effort can be done? Ben, we know you would do nothing as you 'disbelieve' but I'd wager you'd still be willing to play a role in it. 0% involuntary unemployment, significant leveling of incomes, etc. It's not all bad.

and I would think it's obvious that working against such activities would be considered something "beyond terrorism" - who would stand for it?

The way I see it is that global governance is systemically corrupt beyond any possibility of correction from within or without....nothing bar its total destruction can offer any hope of a better way forward for humanity.

I do not want to be a part of any political effort of the left or right to sustain this duopolistic beast, nor a part of any revolutionary war of the left or the right to try and destroy it....for the seeds of its own destruction are sown and will manifest their fruit soon enough imho.....and I wager you it will be before any of your favorite global warming catastrophes predicted by the beast's corrupted soothsayers ever occur.

I personally don't care that your view is different justdrew...we can agree to disagree and you can still be my friend...but it is the many political extremists of both the left and right that live by the principle that if you are not for me, you are against me and thus must be destroyed, that I see as 'the seeds' I referred to above that will lead this present corrupt system to destruction.

[Sounder]

justdrew wrote…

I don't like it, but I don't see any other way we're going to address this.

Thankfully, the fate of humanity will not be determined by the limits of your imagination.

but I'd wager you'd still be willing to play a role in it. 0% involuntary unemployment, significant leveling of incomes, etc. It's not all bad.

Wishing don’t make it so.

and I would think it's obvious that working against such activities would be considered something "beyond terrorism" - who would stand for it?

Ok then Captain obvious, the answer then is to kill the resistors.

Do these resistors need to be killed?


http://journal-neo.org/2014/06/11/commo ... e-jungles/

Commodifying Nature: Stealing the Jungles?

According to ecological groups, a climate change programme at the United Nations, called REDD, may be facilitating the theft of the earth’s remaining reserves of forest and jungle.
A recent ecological conference in Chiapas, Mexico, raised concerns as to REDD involvement in indigenous issues, as related to forests and climate change. The conference, which took place in San Cristobal de las Casas in the first week in May, was entitled Escuela de la Sustentabilidad de Amigos de la Tierra de América Latina y el Caribe and was one in a series of open and public conferences allowing discussion and input on the ongoing work of a number of affiliated ecological groups.

The focal point of the first day of open meetings pinpointed the UN program, REDD, which is an acronym for “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.” According to the UN, REDD has been developed to protect the forests in pursuit of reducing carbon emissions which come from deforestation:

“The UN-REDD Programme supports nationally-led REDD + processes and promotes the informed and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent communities, in national and international REDD+ implementation.”

However, the reality of REDD is something quite different from its website pronouncements. Case after case has been cited where REDD has been used as a mechanism to speciously rob indigenous communities, living in jungles or forests, of their rights to their land.

According to conference speakers, indigenous communities are being presented with documents to sign which effectively mitigate or entirely remove the rights of the communities to work or live on the land which they have occupied for centuries. These documents may provide the promise of financial inducements, usually fairly small or may be unclear as to the repercussions that will incur. Upon signing, the inhabitants of these forest communities may lose their rights to work the land, fish or engage in other sustenance- producing activities. In fact, they may be forcibly removed from their land and homes.

At least one case was cited in which, when a community in Guatemala refused to sign the documents, a massacre ensued and the inhabitants of the community were slaughtered.
This citation gains credence given reports coming from Kenya, where REDD is also in operation. Recent articles cite evictions tied to the REDD funding programs in the Kenyan Cherangany Hills, where paramilitary groups working for the Kenyan police are now violently evicting the indigenous populations, as well as burning down their houses in efforts to remove them from their REDD-managed land.

The REDD program in Kenya is funded by the World Bank.

The Chiapas conference presented information concerning “tree plantations,” which are being planted in the wake of deforestation, which appears to be ongoing under REDD. While REDD maintains that its aim is to protect forests, often forests are destroyed under REDD and tree plantations are erected as a substitute and to purportedly offset the released carbon.

These tree plantations are usually monoculture, and either African palm or Jatropha is planted, according to Cristian Santiago, who works with the ecological group Otros Mundos. Santiago states that these tree plantations are producing biofuels. “These plantations are profitable for the involved corporations,” he says. “What is happening is that they are destroying natural reserves, forcibly relocating the communities, and planting tree farms for their own profit.”

Concerns were also raised at the conference concerning the involvement not only of corporations, but also of foreign governments. California’s plan to invest in indigenous forests in order to offset its own carbon emissions was cited, as well. In 2010, California signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil which would allow for California to pay hundreds of millions in taxpayer monies to “protect” foreign forests, in order to offset California’s own carbon emissions. Recently, the California Legislature has been considering SB 605, which would limit the international carbon trade of California. The bill has been tabled in the Assembly after passing in the Senate.
Acceding to public pressure, the government of Chiapas has attempted to back out of the California scheme. However, money has already passed hands and the fate of this project remains unclear. And if “REDD is dead” in Chiapas at this juncture, it appears to be live and kicking elsewhere in Mexico.

Other organizations have warned against REDD’s impact on indigenous groups. The International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change, which is the indigenous caucus to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), has issued this statement on REDD:

“REDD will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but, in fact, it will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. It will increase the violation of our Human Rights, our rights to our lands, territories and resources, steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access and threaten indigenous agriculture practices, destroy biodiversity and culture diversity and cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and Carbon Traders will take more control over our forests.”

Cristian Santiago cited a number of Latin American coup d’etats in recent years in which Latin American governments resistant to corporate forest takeovers were forcibly removed. He named Monsanto as a shadow partner in the coups, which took place in Paraguay in 2012 and in Honduras in 2009. Both countries had been previously involved in ALBA, (Alliance Boliviana for the Americas), an intergovernmental group supporting economic and political integration of Latin America. ALBA has been opposed by the United States government.

The Chiapas conference discussed strategies to reduce the potential for what amounts to land grabs under REDD. Also under discussion were paradigm changes in terms of the way forests are being viewed.The conference was organized by the Federacion de Amigos de la Tierra de Latinoamerica y Caribe. Represented were a number of ecological groups, including Otros Mundos, CEIBA (Guatemala), CENSAT (Columbia), COECOCEIBA (Costa Rica), Amigos de la Tierra (Argentina), Sobrevivencia (Paraguay), Madre Tierra (Honduras), CESTA (El Salvador) and Redes (Uruguay).

Joan Dark, New-York based independent researcher, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


justdrew has shown how AGW is a fulcrum that reduces compassion for ones fellow man. And that kind of thing is just a short hop, skip and a jump away from fascism.

[Sounder]

Folks failure to consciously consider the connection between ‘one million parasol satellites and carbon sequestration’ and western exceptionalism reveals just how deeply (this) social conditioning worms its way into our psyches. Western exceptionalism and civilization are NOT synonymous, and the connection is becoming more tenuous day by day.

You cannot make the world into your image, and this narcissistic longing is precisely the thing that shows disrespect for the world.

‘the World’, -reality, nature will someday teach us about the shallowness of our pretences, actually it already does all the time for those that care to listen.

[Luther Blissett]

Are there enough organic seeds in the market today for every human on earth to start a proportional pocket farm in their locale during a spontaneous anti-capitalist revolution?