Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 5to10

Pages: [1] 2
1
The rest / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: June 09, 2018, 07:36:32 AM »
I ain't been on in a hot minute. But I just came to share the reality.

I share that reality fairly closely with you. Which is why I said yesterday (among other things)
 https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2301.msg157829.html#msg157829

People are terribly distracted and totally missing the point while simultaneously losing the plot. :)

Drink up bud. Or spark one, or whatever. Not sure what else there is left to do. Preserving seeds feels like little more than an effort in futility, but I'll continue with that as well.

2
The rest / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: June 09, 2018, 06:32:48 AM »
I ain't been on in a hot minute. But I just came to share the reality.

Both sides in the U.S. are complicit in the ongoing diversion of global attention from the reality of abrupt climate change. In fact, name a single Western government, or in fact any powerful nation that gets regular media attention which is being realistic with its constituents regarding the severity of our current predicament. As in motivating their nation to serious, legitimately impactful changes which will prevent our collective demise, reminding people on a regular basis of the steps we need to be taking RIGHT NOW individually and industrially, and actually fucking making an impact. Go ahead. One nation.

Why are there ZERO? Because Trump and the entire fucking circus surrounding him are the biggest fucking diversion in the history of mankind. Because world leaders, collectively and privately, know there are no solutions, just as well as most everyone here. Because we have little time left, and the changes are becoming drastic and noticeable all over the world.

Because the panic that would erupt from global recognition would lead to hasty collapses all over the globe, out of sheer hysteria alone.

The alternative is: Divert. Distract. Deny. Downplay. And simply carry on this way for as long as possible, until the impacts are so severe that it doesn't matter any more - The weather becomes so severe that large portions of our crop systems have failed and there's no food left to go around, for example.

World leaders are coasting on diversionary bullshit, especially at the mouth of Trump (The man who applied to build seawalls around his golf course citing global warming + coastal erosion as a main reason, but allegedly "doesn't believe in climate change" - fucking horse shit, yes he demonstrably does.) to avoid the absolute chaos that would unfold were most people to truly recognize how dire our circumstance.

In other words: Fuck russia, fuck trump, fuck identity politics, fuck liberals, fuck conservatives, fuck the notion that ANY powerhouse nations are taking climate change seriously, simply put, fuck standing in a burning building arguing about the structural integrity. You are about to fucking die, get out of the goddamn building or put the fire out. The individual and collective behaviour of politicians worldwide implies there's simply no way to do so, and so we have our current state of affairs.

You are being duped, no matter which side you find yourself on. Good luck everyone. We will surely need it soon.

Edited for vocab/spelling errors.

3
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 04:46:35 PM »
FWIW, I have him (her?) on ignore. There's a place somewhere on the ASIF, I suppose, for bashing and berating those who refute, or just simply disagree with, your profound thoughts on how we'll all, I don't know, gather together at the base of The Tree of Souls and use a tsaheylu to tap our neuroconductive antennae into the spirit of Eywa to help save us from our self-made climate catastrophe.

But this thread probably isn't that place.

I suppose the term "open thread" can mean different things to different people. But to me it simply means this particular forum is for discussing things associated with Arctic sea ice that aren't easily categorized. This isn't where we should discuss fried chicken recipes, or association football, or stock prices--or, you know, comparative religions.

So: as many others have suggested, can we *please* move this conversation elsewhere?

You're right - figuring out a way to usefully convey and ultimately have your wealth of information widely recognized and understood such that it is used is totally not related to what you're working on here. You just want to reveal truth amongst yourselves, while complaining together that not enough people get it, I understand now.

You should just carry on doing what you've all been doing for the past umpteen years then - knowing all the details, while pining for ears that can hear you or a mouth that can properly translate towards understanding.

Keep plodding along this same old course, and find the same old results, or revolutionize the process to find new ones.

The fundamental prediction is obvious: We are in deep trouble and need to work on this ASAP.

The issue now is CONVEYING it so that everybody gets it we can choose to work on it or not, not seeking to add more percentiles to the overall probability of it happening, by way of looking for more supporting data or otherwise wasting time.

The time is now.

4
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 01:38:51 PM »
The thread is fine, much of the recent content is a waste of time and energy.   Certain posts/posters can be read or ignored, as with every thread.  Most that have been reading this thread from the beginning would probably not have done what you just did.  DFTT
Another false representation.

A troll seeks discord through deceit. I seek unity through understanding. You do not believe in unity. Who is the troll?

5
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 01:28:49 PM »
@all except 5to10
Don't you feel like I do, that this thread is a waste of time/energy?

@5to10
Just a few personal questions

- How old are you?
- Do you have children?
- If not, do you intend to have some?

Just bare answers, w/o comments, please. Those answers seem important to understand where you speak from.

(I am 63, 3 children, 3 grandchildren)

You are never wasting your time and energy in pursuit of the truth.

I am not the messages I relate, and they are not mine to claim ownership. I am merely a vehicle for the truth to be shared.

Discussing my personal life is purposeless. Focus on the message. You will find unfaltering peace of mind in the truth therein.

6
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 12:18:10 PM »
(Firstly, please do move this to a different section of the forum - it doesn't belong here!)

"Truth" and "unity" are words that send shivers up my back - the rallying cries of ayatollahs of every creed.
Ayatollahs who distort the truth into deceit towards impure causes, and present a distorted version of the true unity I speak of, which will not be an option until the fundamental truth is understood by all. This is not the same. I speak of a fundamental unity born out of love.

I have presented nothing but IRREFUTABLE truths about our situation and about our fundamental choice here. What you do with it is, well, your choice.
Quote
Unfortunately, those are the words of all the above-mentioned ayatollahs of every creed.
Thank you for a great response. I recognize the similarities, but stand by the statement that I only provided irrefutable truth and the only path to our salvation. Awareness of truth, of the fundamental moral choice in the most difficult crisis, leading to unity by way of our collective good will, which is hidden beneath our ignorance and confusion. The understanding will destroy those barriers and awaken that goodwill.

Quote
Look, 5to10, the problem is that what you have is a beautiful dream, which has been dreamed many times before, and which has never turned out to be anything other than a dream. Is it possible, in the distant future, for everyone to think in the same way? Possibly, but we're talking about a distant future; first we have to homogenise the cultures, languages and religions of the world, and I for one would be very sad to see that happen. It would also be far too late.


Correct. It is a beautiful dream which has never happened.. because there has never been a time wherein we've needed to dream it so desperately. Should events unfold that make abrupt climate change and imminent, large-scale collapse or total destruction patently obvious, unavoidable to the vast majority (not even close yet), said dream will suddenly become a possibility. It will become a necessity, indeed, to succeed in any efforts. This will be widely understood, and very quickly - it is obvious even now.

So I do believe that this dire situation, should it unfold (And it sure looks that way more and more) will be unlike any other humanity has experienced in a big way, thus our thoughts and choices will change rapidly to focus on and suit the situation. People have children. People love the natural world. People appreciate consciousness. People don't want to die. There are MANY strong motivators to work together. Combine that with the internet, we are all instantly connected. Things are instantly translated. This world is ripe for that dream to become a reality, in the not too distant future even. Through this coming awareness of our position and recognition of our fundamental choice, we will seek and find togetherness. And out of togetherness, we will seek and find awareness and truth.

Quote
Even given that, is it possible for all humans to act selflessly, and not for personal, familial or national gain, when the pressure on resources increases? No matter what your dream, I don't believe this is even close to being viable.

Again, and this is a hard one to speak about because I have no way to prove it with evidence. All I can say is "It just makes sense"... A unity this strong would no doubt be much more powerful to influence positive change as we progressed in the future beyond crises. Think of it this way... We are always progressing a little bit more towards awareness and understanding individually and collectively.. and right now we are still slowed down greatly by rampant division. Imagine the speed of our progress if it did not exist. I am proposing that though we cannot see the solutions in the context of our divided world now, that once unified behind making the positive choice, after we recognize the fundamental truth of our position, division disappears.

To weather the storm together, is to do it out of unified goodwill, labour, and optimism. How could we be expected to fall back into this fog after doing that? With the awareness we will gain... It is literally like the singularity, as someone else said. I can't even conceive the potential of a truly united, totally connected humanity that respects the natural world deeply. Problems would just start to disappear, we would be working as a well oiled machine instead of a rust bucket. This must be a very optimistic future.

Quote
What it comes down to is that you are asking a lot of very talented, energetic and intelligent people to drop what they're doing and adopt your strategy of persuading journalists of the Truth. There are some major problems with this. 

1. Few people here believe that humans have the technological ability, at present, to stop catastrophic climate change. A dream of some technology in the future doesn't help.

Again. viewing the situation in the context of an extremely divided humanity. Our overall potential greatly increases in unity backed by truth and open honest communication, in every way. There would be no more deception clogging up the flow of information, this is again nigh inconceivable.

This is all possible with the internet and modern media.

Quote
2. No-one here (I think) is persuaded that all journalists are persuadable; and unless they speak with one voice then it's pointless. Given that the media thrives on controversy, it's probably not possible to have an open media that speaks with one voice. That point is surely decades away, if it's even possible.
It will be sparked by sudden global awareness that yes, in fact, the end IS nigh. Be that 2 years from now or decades away, as you say. This will unify the focus of the media naturally, once the truth of the situation can no longer be avoided in the minds of the vast majority. Many events could lead to this awareness and the weather is predicted to be more violent and unpredictable. Unless it all comes crashing down and kills us all at once, people will be asking questions. Journalists included. This is already happening.

Quote
3. Energy spent on your project takes energy away from other things, such as monitoring Arctic ice, trying to understand it, planning for the skills needed after potential societal collapse, etc. People who are extremely good at those aspects are not necessarily good at persuading reluctant journalists that what they are reporting on is more important than their livelihoods. What you are suggesting is a waste of skills that are likely to be essential for the well-being of society when the collapse starts to kick in.
Aside from "preparing for societal collapse" (I truly believe we are headed for an amazing future beyond this present despair, that energy is spent towards the wrong cause. There is a solution in unity, we should spend energy on that) I accept much of this as true in relation to the communication issues that may arise there.

I believe some people gleaned valuable insight from my posts, or optimism, hope, positivity, and for that reason it's been worthwhile. Moreso, scientists are so rational that who better an audience to refute a hypothesis? I believe in what I say, I must subject it to scrutiny as well as use my time wisely in doing so. I believe you all can and will eventually do something with this understanding or I wouldn't be here in the first place.

Quote
4. By arguing for your dream of putting all our energy into planning for what is probably an impossible pre-emptive solution, you are taking energy away from a detailed understanding of what is happening, how it will progress, and how we can best survive in a post-overpopulation world.
I would say that creating a detailed understanding is what has been done for quite some time now, yet the situation continues to worsen, and faster as time progresses. You have the understanding of the fundamental physical situation. Now gain the understanding of the fundamental moral, spiritual situation. Some people have one or the other, few fathom both. All will understand both intimately when events unfold. Most people are moral but misguided, confused. When understanding arrives, we will unite behind our general desire to live and let live (when we aren't irrationally afraid of ethereal threats. These threats will fall to the wayside for all in comparison to the threat we will all soon see and understand together)

Quote
Telling people that they are selfish and lazy because they do not see the situation in the same way that you do, even when some of them have done an enormous amount towards reducing their carbon footprints and/or making their communities self-supporting, is arrogant and insulting. Personally, I think you are well-intentioned but misguided, and your 'solution' will set back our ability to cope with the crisis. I hope I've covered everything, because I don't have time to get sucked into this debate - I'm too busy helping the local community to become more sustainable, while attempting to earn enough to get by.
Reducing our carbon footprints and recycling is not enough. We will have to sacrifice so much more first in the name of what is right. We will have to give up almost the whole world we are used to for goodness or be a part of the destruction. Our supermarkets. Our oil addiction. Our differences. Our jobs. This is the difficulty of the fundamental choice we will all soon be faced with. We must sacrifice our wants for the needs of everything and everyone else, and ourselves.

Perhaps it is not to evoke a sense of duty in you scientists to do more, but to hope to set your mind at ease for the future and prepare you to jump at the opportunity for your efforts to culminate into beautiful fruition.

I only meant to show the power of the fundamental truth and the fundamental choice all will be faced with soon. If you take nothing else from my messages, let it be that.

I truly thank you for your response. It is rational, it is focused, it is without malicious intent. Thank you for that. I will leave you all alone now unless I'm asked to respond again or deceptive attacks on the truth persist.

Have faith for the future, it is a bright one. Most of us are good, deep down, just very confused, and thus irrational. I believe that.

7
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 09:14:00 AM »
"Truth" and "unity" are words that send shivers up my back - the rallying cries of ayatollahs of every creed.
Ayatollahs who distort the truth into deceit towards impure causes, and present a distorted version of the true unity I speak of, which will not be an option until the fundamental truth is understood by all. This is not the same. I speak of a fundamental unity born out of love.

Quote
"Unitiy" can only be achieved with violence, and "truth" is a man-made construct that has little to do with reality. "Facts" are only what we make them. In our current political climate, the term "post-truth" has been bandied about, but in reality "truth" has never been anything other than the statements that best fit the belief system and emotional status of the receiver.

Unity is achieved from within our minds. There do exist irrefutable truths which are beyond the constructs of man, such as the irrefutable truth I have presented throughout this thread. Which has yet to be refuted, obviously, despite its abstract nature.

Quote
My belief system presupposes me to accept that global warming is a very large danger to our current society - but it also precludes me from accepting calls for "unity" and "truth". There are no magic solutions to the dire future that many rightly fear, but semi-religious delusional ramblings on "unity" and "truth" are never going to solve anything.

It matters not - unity is on the horizon and you will soon understand all of this, despite its "improbability". It is not magical. The unity I speak of is unlike any we have known, a force many magnitudes greater than the divided humanity we are familiar with. In fact, our arrival there is inevitable. It defies our present logic, for it has never been, and so it cannot yet be fully understood. A glimmer in the distance, it has been, that humanity has forever been drawn towards. The light grows brighter until we are fully illuminated.

I have presented nothing but IRREFUTABLE truths about our situation and about our fundamental choice here. What you do with it is, well, your choice.

8
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 03:08:23 AM »
You had the privilege to choose.
You have the luxury of a first world nation to live in which supports that choice.
You are obligated by nothing.
You have the smug irrefutable certainty of rectitude appropriate for a zealot. That is the epitome of pride.

As I said, you may argue ad nauseum, but will gain no traction.

I'm sorry, did I choose that privilege?
I'm sorry, did I choose the nation I was born in?
I'm sorry, are you the master and commander of my beliefs and my personal obligations based on them?
I'm sorry, have you refuted any of my ideas or merely attacked the messenger?

I'm sorry, do you think I will allow malicious commentary lacking substance to dissuade me?

Will you add anything of value to this discussion, or continue to attack me and continue to prove yourself malicious and deceptive?

Does anything you've said here have any relation to what we're talking about? You are awfully focused on me and not the ideas.

My "privilege" has no bearing on the merit of the ideas. You hide from the truth I am presenting behind logical fallacies and personal attacks.

9
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 02:44:24 AM »
You will not have unity until you have equality.

You will not have equality until human needs are addressed.

As long as human need fails to be addressed, those in need, and those who obstruct addressing it, will have little interest in any sort of metaphysical truth.

Your arguments smack of the conceit of privilege which neither feels need, nor has the experience of inequality.

Your prideful continuing insistence in repeating them is become tiresome.

More borderline ad-hominems? Have I attacked anyone here? Stop this.

Your assumptions are false. I have sacrificed a normal life and many relationships in the search for truth. I have given up almost everything and I make only enough to pay for what I need, plus a couple vices I need to give up. Between 600-800 a month CAD, to be exact, depending on how many days I work. I am content with everything I have and desire nothing more than to find truth, above all else. I am for many years now, and will continue to be, single and abstinent, not for religious purposes but out of my search for truth I have lost the desire to have a physical relationship or a traditional one for that matter, not by thinking about solitude and aiming for it, but simply as a side effect. I embrace and cherish all my relationships otherwise.

I am well aware of the causes and effects of inequality.

This "metaphysical truth" will continue to prove itself true until the majority are aware of it. The events of the day support the ideas. The blissfully ignorant public will wield their pitchforks quickly when reality finally set in, of that we can be sure. From there they will understand the options: Try everything, or give up. I am certainly not the only person realizing these obscure irrefutable truths - am I?

I'm not prideful. I'm obligated to share and defend the truth. Especially in relation to our circumstances. Since you nor anyone else can logically refute it, and continue to focus mainly on symptoms on the disease rather than the cure, as well as spread deceptive information and commentary on the truth, I feel an obligation to respond.

10
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 10:39:00 PM »
^  ^   ^   ^   ^

And all that is why I miss A-Team.

 8)

Twas stuff like this drove him off.

Glad it's quaranteened here.

Jim Williams - I believe in Physics, which is slightly off from your "no Truth" but close enough for us to get along fine, I'd wager.

5to10 - You're arguing a losing battle here, and semantic philosophical argument about "Truth" and "Unity" are unlikely to get traction, and in fact highlight in part why we need robust political structures in place to deal with dissent.

It's not semantic. It is the only way forward for us. The fundamental choice and these truths will be vividly apparent to all eventually, whether you believe me or like what I'm saying here or not. I am morally obligated to share it and expose deception against it, especially given the circumstances.

Fundamental truth becomes more obvious with time, and that is already starting to become apparent here or people wouldn't be making personal changes in a (potentially futile) effort to stop it. We are becoming more aware of our situation and our individual influence.

Maybe it will take even more serious displacement and destruction for most to understand. I guess the biggest thing in the way of our full awareness is time itself, for these truths are already floating around out there and gaining traction. We ARE recognizing our influence, more and more. We ARE feeling remorseful and making changes, albeit slowly. Events to come will provide more evidence of our roles if trajectory continues.

I suppose this will all happen whether I make these efforts or not, so perhaps this is pointless indeed. As to why I'm here rather than other forums.. Because if you're reading this forum, you're already aware of much, but may feel helpless to enact impactful change. I have presented a huge pre-requisite (unity backed by optimism, clear purpose and truth) and a possible solution to it: Uniting journalism/media with the help of science towards a clear, simple purpose that humanity can stand behind - for goodness, for optimism, by raising fundamental awareness of the fundamental moral decision.

If you can't think of a way around the pre-requisite, why are you even bothering to work on the details beyond it, should you intend to use the knowledge gleaned to change things? It is all futile without tackling the issue of division, so your energy is well spent helping to figure that problem out ASAP as well. The logistics of such an endeavour will require most on the same page, surely. The solutions to all external problems are, in the end, purely internal to begin with. It is the internal that got us here, not the external. It is that which gets us somewhere else too.

11
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:53:51 PM »
You mentioned praying earlier. I would suggest praying intently and more reading your Bible before putting you trust in any political organisation(s). Bible prophecy does not point to the outcome you may expect. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

A couple people have pointed out the original intention of this thread and that it has derailed. I will let that be my closing comment on the matter on this thread.

I don't think I suggested praying. I'm not a devout Christian in the traditional sense at least. I accept that, as I have read and contemplated the symbolic message, all of what Jesus said in the bible seems logical and is truthful. I do not believe a bearded guy in the sky is gonna send me to burn in a literal pit of fire.

I do not actually expect the U.N. as it exists presently to do anything in the end, but I sort of had to frame it that way.

Also remember.. "death" does not have to be physical, material.. "death" (or "the locking away of the beasts for 1000 years" as Revelations proposes symbolically) of "the beast" could simply mean that a consciousness shift caused "the beast within the minds and actions of people" to be destroyed. Thus, those entities could no longer operate out of evil intent, as they do not have minds to make moral decisions with, the people that compose them do and as such the work of the entities is hinged on that.

"The Beast" cannot not exist anywhere but within each and every one of us, we give "it' power. However "it" naturally acts and speaks best through government and media.

In other words, the government/the U.N./the media, all of these entities would be forced to transform along with our consciousness. They could never exist as they are now afterwards if the majority of the cogs in the machine stopped turning in that direction. Those entities are totally reliant on how WE human beings think and operate within them. I believe only a small sect of those entities are truly "evil", thus things can (and likely will) truly change.

People here are acting as if they are separate, conscious entities. They're not. They do what we make them do. If we all (the vast majority) choose to do and believe something different, so will they have to.

We don't burn "witches" at the stake anymore, because we progressed past a distorted state of awareness that provoked fear-driven responses and ultimately, division. We aren't just going to go back to calling people witches and burning them anytime soon because we understand the truth now. There's no such thing, they burned people alive for no reason, we could never consider "burning witches" anymore because we understand the truth. Would we continue to burn the world? I don't think so. So the truth and our choices are not widely understood.

We can do this here. We can make a change. We can beat division.

12
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:21:35 PM »
Quote
The UN does not have the influence that news-media does.

All the media talks about anymore are political leaders and the only solutions the media points to are political solutions. If they did make everyone aware of the what is happening with the climate, and the people united and protested in the streets for their leaders to find a solution, it would only go full circle to the one institution the world leaders have in common and at their disposal, the U.N..

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere, when your argument proves my point. Humanity would be united behind a clear purpose and willing to try. Now we could start at the important work. Now the U.N. could actually do something. Now scientists would be listened to. So many great things could start from here.

13
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:19:50 PM »
5to10

"All I can say is that truth has a powerful "feedback" mechanism built in that kind of makes it spread itself as it goes until it overwhelms the bullshit."

The truth is abstract. I think? While I agree with your line of reasoning I think, coming to a unified truth is like looking for the singularity. It most likely exists, but if found, most will not likely be able to wrap their heads around it.
 For any situation there are as many truths as there are observers. Each holding that their version of the truth is the correct one. Getting an agreement between observers increases in difficulty with the increase in their number. Having a consensus  between 76 people on how anything should function is an amazing feat. Getting 7.6 billion to agree well now that's optimism. So long as there is power and profit to be made from corrupting any such truth it will be nye impossible to pull it off.

The temptation to deceive is as old as the human race,
and so is the inclination to succumb to deception,
which is credulity.
Joseph Jastrow

I really do understand all this, and I absolutely love the concept of the singularity here. That is exactly what I'm working for, a perfect description, some manner of singularity of consciousness.

Perhaps this does exist. Perhaps the key is a fundamental truth which no mind is able to avoid should it be presented.

Perhaps though, the time it takes to stop avoiding it will be too long in most, I do understand that notion as well.

I would apologize to all for "being vigorous" here if it was not out of the purest intentions. I will digress though, as my point has been well made.

I am by no means implying any of you are "bad people who aren't doing anything" - on the contrary, I think you are some of the greatest quality we have, that is why I'm here. Many influential eyes and minds are on the arctic right now.

14
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:10:41 PM »
GrayWolf - What you are seeing in the dissent is an individual struggle with an effectively inescapable truth they had as yet not seen. If it is not, I have yet to see logical opposition. Show me some, or accept it once you recognize it.

No, the problem isn't that anyone is unwilling to consider your vision and plan.  Some see the human problem differently, but these are smart, open-minded folks here.

The problem is that the vigorous proponent of unity has been repetitive, long-winded, dogmatic, and dismissive of others.

If such proponents of unity can only sow discord, then this may portend a bad outcome for humanity.

I will certainly dismiss irrational arguments, don't you? Where are the rational arguments? And since I believe my perspective, I must of course be vigorous in defending and promoting it. So until you provide a reasonable alternative, here I will be.

Part of me would much rather be playing guitar, or video games, or skimming pointless diatribe on the internet right now, but I ain't. I have devoted myself to what I believe here and elsewhere and I am disappointed people say I'm trolling when I'm clearly not. I'm walking my talk, because I truly have not seen a rational alternative, certainly not here. I put the same weight on myself when I recognized there might be a way out, now I am aiming for it because I feel like it is right. Perhaps I should just digress here.

One more thing.. discord is often a precursor to higher understanding. I would have to say history proves this as well.

15
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:01:26 PM »
Quote
The UN does not direct us towards an exactly clear purpose.

The main goals of the U.N. are to achieve peace and security. Averting climate disaster would fall under the security part. It is hard to focus on the security part, without assuming first that you don't have war, having achieved peace. I wouldn't assume that by the way.

The UN does not have the influence that news-media does.

Journalists are still the key. Human beings who can do something if they were to be aware of the choice. You are not exactly making a choice until you're aware you have one.

Make them aware they have a choice so that they can work together to make us aware we have a choice.

How? Just by doing what you can to spread all of these concepts. Regardless of your thoughts on how possible any of this is, it's still rational. And it still boils down to clear recognition that you are choosing either try everything we can together and find any chance there is, or submit to your selfish wants and needs and seek to ensure destruction of the living world.

I have great faith that there is a distinct, massively positive difference between a humanity that mostly recognizes that they have a decision, and our present state of affairs where very few people are aware of the decision as it exists fundamentally.


I'm disappointed that people say I'm trolling the thread, when I have proposed a simple solution to which we can all perhaps make a difference: Spread the fundamental choice. To which I might add, nobody has been able to refute. All people can say is "A united humanity isn't possible because humanity isn't united right now", that's a ludicrous argument. If they throw that out, they seek a way to avoid boiling all the information down to this fundamental choice and spreading awareness of THAT first, rather than sharing all the details of the situation (Which clearly hasn't ever worked, try something new) or any of the rest of the incoherent mess that exists in the media today.

Seems cognitive dissonance will continue to get the best of most.

16
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 06:38:01 PM »
The United Nations has failed, but not by lack of effort. How can you organize something greater than it on here and expect to outdo it. First of all, if you don't work your goals through the U.N., it will not allow you to do so outside of it. Billions of dollars have been poured into it and no lack of effort. It would take a lifetime to build up any organization to come even close to it in scope and magnitude. Furthermore, it can't ever accomplish what it has been made out to be and do.

The UN does not direct us towards an exactly clear purpose and is not backed by a mostly united humanity. Sticking to fundamentals and a clear purpose rather than trying to sort out a path based on a nigh infinite set of information points is somewhat important. Together, scientists and the media and all other useful entities can achieve this clear optimistic purpose and assist in communicating the logistics in our united efforts. The only reason that doesn't happen already is because the human beings who compose those entities lack the fundamental awareness I am trying to spread or think it is impossible too.

If you can at least understand where I've been going with this.. That it is in fact possible to thrust a clear moral choice on somebody that they weren't aware they had before, and it doesn't take much effort (Even if they try to refute it for a while... cognitive dissonance is a thing). This moral choice will only exist based on their personal value systems, but those have to stand up to the fundamental truth within their own minds as well.

Certainly, there are other possible irrefutable truths that one can go with, I don't deny that. For example "I don't need to do anything because aliens will save us eventually", well I can't refute that, but it leaves me helpless to do anything. The irrefutable truth I am presenting allows us to do something: Just spread it, it has a great effect just doing that. Thrust this awareness on people. Keep it fundamental. It MIGHT be able to turn the tide for us. Unless you can think of a more viable option to START turning things around than unifying as many people and resources as we can ASAP, then just do it already!

The problem we have is that few humans have been faced with the difficult concept I am trying to explain. They lack the awareness of our individual impacts.

Truth is a powerful weapon against the instinctual, fear-driven, and selfish urges we have as individuals literally as easy as making someone aware of it.

In a way, it has a feedback effect built in. Once you realize that spreading this truth and awareness of our personal responsibility appears to be our only chance to avoid total destruction, that unifying is the only way, you kind of have to spread the truth or accept that you are part of the destruction if you don't. Thus I can already see its potential to absolutely transform our global consciousness as it slowly pervades.

What I mean is, most people must be on this page before existent entities can make any impactful change either. You can comment on the present state all you like, I keep saying those things will change as we change. I have noted what you're saying, I'm proposing the solution. You're making an effort to avoid the choice you have, within your own mind.

Again, truth makes anyone who doesn't accept it fall to the wayside in the end. Nobody believes the sun revolves around the Earth anymore. Those who fail to accept this truth that unity is the way forward will disappear in the end too.

It is so easy to have optimism when you start thinking about what I'm trying to explain.

All I can say is that truth has a powerful "feedback" mechanism built in that kind of makes it spread itself as it goes until it overwhelms the bullshit.

17
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 06:16:52 PM »
GrayWolf - What you are seeing in the dissent is an individual struggle with an effectively inescapable truth they had as yet not seen. If it is not, I have yet to see logical opposition. Show me some, or accept it once you recognize it.

They are doing everything they can to refute what I'm saying within their own minds, clinging to any fading thread they can see. The truth is brutal sometimes.

I should hope the struggle it creates within them will help to understand how powerful of a motivator this fundamental truth could be towards unity if it was widespread, if we cut away the sea of information that keeps it hidden.

It is so powerful that it is not only easily maintained as irrefutable through debate, but once one accepts it they are immediately forced within themselves to make a clear decision based on its ramifications.

Thus, it really does come down to one thing: Are we really mostly good? Would we mostly choose to TRY to save the world? Are we just hateful and divisive out of fear and ignorance and confusion?

These are the things our future depends on.

18
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 06:04:11 PM »
Where in the history of mankind has this been able to be before?

You nailed it.

Because of the internet, We are able to do what I am suggesting, unify. The potential is there. We are connected.

We have never had an opportunity to unify to this degree before the internet. Now we CAN try, and succeed. We just haven't made a decent effort yet.

19
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:55:06 PM »
You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.

I am a Primitive Buddhist.  I believe:  No essence.  No permanence.  No perfection.

Simply by asserting that something is True you have completely lost any possible support from me and people who think like me.  I do not believe in Truth.

So you believe it's true that there is no truth? That's ironic.

Openly contradicting yourself in such a small comment is not a good way to support your argument.
I hope you get banned.
Ahh, a direct personal attack.

Out of irrational rebuttals that are easily shut down then?

Accept the truth yet, and your logically established role as a destroyer of a beautiful future we could work towards (Not an ad-hominem but also a truth, not putting all effort towards unity as an individual and so as a collective seems to lead to certain destruction based on all data. Unity seems to lead to a better future, based on simple logic), or will you just end your tirade of false dispute with this blatant attack?

20
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:45:41 PM »
Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.

Unfortunate that his statement was again easily refuted by the truth.

Still waiting on one of you 3-5 people to present some kind of rational statement in contradiction to what I'm explaining.

You'd think there would be strength in numbers here as usual, but the truth doesn't lose to the deception of the majority.

Refute it or accept it.

Yours are the ramblings of a madman.  They cannot be refuted, as they are not framed in a common belief system.  We would have to begin with the meaning of truth... who has the time.

A madman in the context of a terribly mad world, whose ideals have proven destructive failures perhaps. The truth cannot be refuted, hence why you are all, as a team (against the truth itself, not me as a human being relating it), having a real problem trying to do so in total vain.

Maybe I am the sane one.

21
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:42:58 PM »
Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.

Unfortunate that his statement was again easily refuted by the truth.

Still waiting on one of you 3-5 people to present some kind of rational statement in contradiction to what I'm explaining.

You'd think there would be strength in numbers here as usual, but the truth doesn't lose to the deception of the majority.

Refute it or accept it.

22
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:37:07 PM »
You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.

I am a Primitive Buddhist.  I believe:  No essence.  No permanence.  No perfection.

Simply by asserting that something is True you have completely lost any possible support from me and people who think like me.  I do not believe in Truth.

So you believe it's true that there is no truth? That's ironic.

Openly contradicting yourself in such a small comment is not a good way to support your argument.

23
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:30:44 PM »
5to10


As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.


You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.


Terry

This is not an eloquent point, he is merely reflecting the problem from which I have proposed a solution. The truth is the truth. There is no alternative to an irrefutable statement, so refute it or accept it. NOBODY has come close to refuting it, evident by the ease in which your statements collapse under minor scrutiny.

I would say that Terry is incorrect based on an assumption I am more than willing to make based on personal experience: The vast majority of people are moral, good, and just want to live and let live. Most, if not all hatred and fear stems from ignorance. We have overwhelming ignorance, thus we have overwhelming hatred and division. Most will want to change when they understand, much like people want to change any negative habit when they recognize its destructive influence. This is the main problem we face in starting to make impactful changes together.

Should we have overwhelming understanding of the FUNDAMENTAL truths of our predicament, that hatred and division has little to rest its laurels on anymore.

You are still just presenting symptoms of the disease as evidence that we can't cure it, not a rebuttal to what I'm proposing we do. You literally just said "We can't be united because we're divided" in different words, again avoiding the point:

Seek to create that unity, surely it is possible with understanding (We have foregone many instinctual urges riding the waves of awareness and understanding through time, thus we can surely do the same here. Those in opposition to widely understood truth fall to the wayside as history has proven), or be a destroyer.

Maybe there cannot be "total unity", however "more than unified enough to do something" seems entirely possible to me, and ANY amount of unity more than what we have at present is positive in respect to solving these problems.

24
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:10:08 PM »
Quote
If this 'reality' is even real to begin with...

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis

Just another way to rationalize your way out of doing something so you can continue being lazy in selfishness.

...

Just my way of saying that you have beat your point to death.

Well it's gotta be done when it's being responded to with something other than the truth. It's not like we're arguing over the best song of the 90's, this is the bloody end of the world we're discussing. "beating your point to death" doesn't really apply in the same way as most internet debates, time is of the essence here. I can see that mass awareness and real understanding is one of the key parts of any chance we may have. I am morally obligated to make sure the truth is known and heard, not buried by deceptive "rebuttals".

People here still trying to avoid their roles. Only way we make any progress is if more people accept their roles. More than willing to engage in discussion, and people keep trying to refute (albeit poorly), so I don't have much of a choice but to re-word what I'm saying in response, or sit here forever asking for a real rebuttal with real talking points to consider that don't just melt away with minimal effort. Nobody is presenting that in opposition of what I'm saying.

As time progresses with no real rebuttal to speak of, it becomes more difficult to avoid within your own mind: This responsibility is yours too. Do everything you can now, or live with the guilt, or reorganize your belief system so that you can accept that you are partially responsible, but it doesn't make you feel bad or try to stop it.

Surely this inspires a response like mine in many: Unfaltering truth even in the face of annoyed opposition.

That is the very start of the solution to our dilemma, if there is one at all. Time to stop lying to ourselves and each other. Hence, I respond.

25
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 04:58:52 PM »
Look, I will never let anybody rationalize OUR responsibility away again unless someone explains a more rational outlook on the grand situation. Nobody has even come close yet.

You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.

So either admit you are a destroyer in your unwillingness to try everything to avoid the very highly probable, or provide some kind of evidence that refutes what I'm saying. Else, I see no reason why you reply other than a futile personal effort to avoid the truth and the difficult personal ramifications of recognizing it.

We are selfish, we are ignorant, we did and we are still doing this. You did this, and you are still doing this. I did this, and I am trying my best from now on to stop doing this, and I hope many others will too.

You are totally able to go down doing nothing, I see that it is the probable conclusion. It doesn't mean I will continue to march with the army of destruction upon realizing my role, just because "Who cares? We probably got no outs!"

26
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 04:44:05 PM »
Quote
If this 'reality' is even real to begin with...

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis

Just another way to rationalize your way out of doing something so you can continue being lazy in selfishness.

You are certainly here commenting and doing many other things day to day in a reality which at least appears real, with real consequences. I for one will base my ideas and decisions on the premise that "This is some kind of reality, and I'm part of it" and that my actions have an effect on it.

Saying "Well this might be a sim so it doesn't matter if i do anything" is akin to a religious ideal.

"Well God will heal my sons cancer so I won't treat him or feed him. Oh how strange, he died."

Lets work in the present circumstances with what we can be reasonably sure is "real" based on experience.

27
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 04:26:24 PM »
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.

The world will be just fine, and I don't see why we need "saving."  This is simply another abrupt climate change, and even Homo Sapiens has survived several so far.

Can't let that go, Jiim, having been involved in cleaning up the aftermath of societal collapse here and there. Being a reluctant father-confessor to both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities teaches one not to regard the very possible future of humanity with equanimity.

Seriously. Jim: This is now a 7.5 billion person, global, exponentially more complex civilization that was built and hinged on relative consistency in planetary phenomena. You cannot begin to propose that the situation is the same simply based on population and scarcity alone.

It is ludicrous to propose that because changes happened before (And these are nowhere near the same changes either, which is yet another deceptive allusion in Jims comment) that this monumental civilization we have built can just magically survive it when all the variables that differ in your comparison suggest that it will not, given our trajectory.

So Jim, if you aren't willing to admit that all data seems to indicate we are on a death spiral and bringing the rest of the living world into it, I suppose nobody will be able to convince you. The evidence is clear, and probabilities can be fairly assigned here.

Unless you can refute that and then come up with a rational reason as to why you think doing little to nothing gives us a better chance than doing everything you can possibly think of, you must do everything now or accept the built-in ramifications of doing nothing.

I mean you don't have to, but if you don't do everything you can, right now,.... well we've already been over what the personal ramifications of that are. You are aiding and abetting in CERTIFYING we have no chance, when a chance may exist (This is barring unseen/unknowable external forces to which we would have to wait to see anyways, a risky and irrational proposition)

SO TRY EVERYTHING, DAMMIT. Or be a destroyer in your desire to maintain a personal status quo that meets your selfish personal WANTS, not the NEEDS of yourself and everything else, such that the collective status quo will mirror that way of life and those personal values to its self-destructive end.

Try to rationalize your way out of the truth all you want. Doesn't work.

All you have left to cling to is going against everything data reports to be likely, and the likely predictions we can make from that data, also irrational. This is where the vast majority are at right now. Let's fix that so we can fix this.

28
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 01:59:12 AM »
hi.. 5to10 .. little problems .. scientists waiting on peer review and the newsmedia bypass that are twatter and farcebook .. Then there is the antagonizing of the like minded .. result .. a Voice inthe Wilderness (what's left of it ) .
You need to find a different level of consciousness in which , as cause , you can effect change .. remember this is quantum world .. every sub atomic particle is waiting to do your bidding ..
 
 
 

It is an interesting observation that certain things I have done to my own body throughout my life are paralleled in the external world. Smoking, for example, I must sacrifice my enjoyment now and quit, it goes against life. The internal creates the external in ourselves and everyone, it appears.

If this is what you are getting at, I have thought about it for sure and thanks for reminding and affirming it.

Beyond this alternative way to look at it, which does deserve credit but is somewhat unknowable.. I still don't see your rebuttal as enough to change my thoughts on the rest. You are describing the difficulties, I recognize them for sure. I still believe it is possible. Radical change means forget everything as it works in the present, to a degree.

29
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 12:15:27 AM »
I can explain it any which way you want me to. Until you are able to clearly and rationally refute the truths I am sharing, or reinterpret the personal ramifications of your awareness of these truths should you not be able to refute them. As well as the hopeful impact of an acute, collective awareness of the above. Perhaps the sense of duty this appears to awaken is what we need.

Forget the semantics. Admit that global unity is the only hopeful way forward if there is any chance at all. Admit and accept within your own mind that your unwillingness to do everything possible towards real change is tantamount to ensuring the living world will find no way out of what appears to be near total destruction. Can you?

If not, but you carry on anyways, then your values and morals are not hinged on a respect for the present living world, consciousness and a desire to preserve it or advance it, or your present and future influence on the situation according to the data which seems all but certain.

Perhaps you must become a denier to avoid it.

Perhaps you rationalize it by saying "Well, t might take longer for life to restart here if it IS impossible and our efforts make it worse". I would argue that there is already, despite the downhill spiral, a beautiful, awe-inspiring, conscious and living world here that is worth trying to save, and could be even more beautiful and awe-inspiring in the future, with a united humanity that weathers this storm.

The decision is your own, and judgement on that decision is not mine or anyone elses to make.

While I don't judge, because I understand the decision and why people take it, I can still recognize the destructive nature of that choice, and so in choosing the opposite I must seek to spread awareness such that less people choose it, now and in the future.

30
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 11:37:59 PM »
5to10,

Your premise of imminent existential threat is not accepted as a fundamental truth.  You build a personal philosophy around it, as is your right.  You project it on others at risk of being called out as a charlatan.

I understand that, I will rephrase, you're right in that I should not claim something to be true that is not certain.

External events seem to vividly support a description of imminent existential threat that is compounding and speeding up with time as a result of our activities. The vast majority of data supports this. Data would support the notion that barring unseen, external solutions that nobody can possibly foresee, we have little time and few options. But data does not PROVE the notion that it is impossible to change the apparent trajectory and conclusion of that course.

I cannot say that it will continue til destruction, no. However, I would argue that one should not and most would not just keep driving a car full speed towards what appears to be a solid brick wall ahead, on the premise that it might be an illusion.

The data is clear.

So, your problem is that the majority do not recognize and understand what the data implies? That we lack the unity we need to cause any real positive changes to happen? Both?

Then newsmedia and scientists need to start working together eventually as directors of global consciousness and creators of solutions respectively, towards what the data implies and what decision we want to make regarding it. Do we want to carry on, or try something new, something unlike we've ever tried before? Something hopeful for all of us?

We must decide. And unity will come out of it, through an extraordinary global effort unlike we can begin to conceive in our state of disarray. The will to survive is strong. The will to live and let live exists, but is hindered by fear and confusion. Unity can exist in this connected world.

I project nothing, I present difficult logical truths that I was forced to consider myself recently. There is a fundamental. There is a black and white. This is a world of duality.

And the truth is the truth.

If we, but also if YOU do not work towards every single rational solution, the data supports the idea that an imminent destruction of more, if not all of the living world will be a CERTAINTY. We cannot say it is impossible to REVERSE that, and proceed united towards a glorious re-imagination TOGETHER.

You can choose that option if you want. You go forth with full awareness of the ramifications of your choice now.

This type of discussion is crucial in our position. This truth will one day be apparent to all, regardless of what I say here anymore or what any of us think about it. We are headed for an incredible battle of, frankly, good vs evil, or however else you choose to word it. Personal accountability vs laziness. Optimism vs pessimism.

The result of human progress will be our painful self-awareness, and out of that awareness will come two choices. Try together or give up divided, in the most dire of situations. We who understand this have a bit of a head start.

31
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 11:13:05 PM »
5to10. It is not black and gray and it is not "with us" or against us.  We are bound by nature and physical phenomena.  Mass balances, heat and mass transfer, materials.  Some things are going to be physically impossible and we just have to accept it and spend our resources to what is possible even if it's very hard to do.

We are bound by our own minds, individually and collectively.

It is black and white. You have yet to disprove the fundamental truth, no rebuttal has yet. Either you don't understand it, or you seek to avoid recognizing its personal ramifications.

We choose to try everything when we recognize the fundamental truth, or we choose to continue doing less than everything we possibly can, and give up.

"This is highly unlikely" is not a rebuttal to my comments. Highly unlikely means there may be a way we can find.

Prove beyond any uncertainty that fixing what we've done is impossible, prove that if we unite we could not possibly find better solutions or especially have the means to implement them much easier when we're on the same page.

You can't? Then I don't care what you say. You will revel in the pleasures you are used to until the end, and if there was any fleeting chance that you could have helped to find, but consciously chose not to, you are choosing those pleasures and your personal status quo over the living world and humanity itself.

Prove otherwise logically, or accept it.

No more "Yes but, this is highly unlikely.. how could we ever.. it would just be so hard.. Surely we can't..". That is your crutch. That is your mental free ticket to doing the same bullshit we've always done and not something better. I will expose it for what it is.

Prove otherwise or accept what you now must recognize is the fundamental truth.

I am not acting out of ego, I am not being an asshole, I'm sharing the truth anonymously because truth should be shared, no matter how hard it is.

32
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 07:20:20 PM »
These are fine sentiments, and I hope you're right, but the good people you describe are such a small minority. Even the upwelling of rational, liberal sentiment in the United States now is the work of a small minority. It looks big, because it's loud, but the voting majority don't want to know about it. They'll be convinced by some proof of something that interests them, such as personal financial loss, or a challenge to their national pride.

The best hope for the world may be that Russia really did collude with the Trump campaign, because then a cache of progressive issues might enter the mainstream on the coattails of dissent.

And then you have people like me.  I used to be a member of Greenpeace, but back in 2000 when A greenpeace campaigner accosted me my reply was "too late, leave me alone."

Sure. That is why people with a perspective like you (pessimism) and anyone similar must be reminded, acutely, by people with a perspective like me (optimism) of what your position means at its very simplest:

If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.

If you do not seek that chance by all means necessary after this realization, you are approving and pushing towards CERTAIN destruction of most or all living things and people, through your inaction, while it is as yet uncertain.

Whether or not you care about that truth is dependent on your morals and values. Despite them, it is true. I hope you change sides here because you are directly affecting mine and everyone elses ability to find that chance by not looking for it harder than ever with us.

Do not seek to ensure destruction through your inaction, in an uncertain situation.

I will continue to drive this fundamental truth home to anyone who has given up. I believe most people are good, moral, and will recognize that there is really only one reasonable choice to make here unless you want us to fail, you revel in this downward spiral, or you believe it's impossible. You cannot know if it's impossible, so which is it?

At the end of the day, it seems to equate to "Well I admit it's possible, but I'm lazy, and i enjoy my life the way it is,.... and i don't actually care that much to change it because it will disrupt what i'm used to."

33
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 06:40:23 PM »
Look here at a vision of the future: Out of fundamental awareness, even more optimism and cooperation. Let us see ourselves for what we are, a microcosm of the whole, and recognize that if it is possible here without too much effort, only recognizing the fundamental truth through the neverending sea of confusion.. it is possible everywhere.

We are working towards this right here with these discussions as others are likely doing the same on forums we may not visit. Truth and awareness ripples outward, but it also pops up in different, disconnected places at the same time. History has many examples of this. I believe it must be happening elsewhere right now, what we are doing right here. It will have great effect soon.

34
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 06:19:12 PM »
I think a lot of the current turn toward insularity and xenophobia is in fact a response to a looming sense of resource scarcity and competition.  Naomi Klein has characterized the future as a battle between "disaster capitalism" and communalism.  It appears for now that the battle lines are being drawn and our better angels are losing. 

I find myself coming back to a sort of old-fashioned word for what I think we need: "conviviality". We need a rise in neighbors working with neighbors within a relocalized and vastly constrained economic model.  To do that, we need to learn to get along and appreciate one another.  While I try and surround myself with people that appreciate that view, I find the world around me increasingly hostile to it.

Is it though? Or are we just being told that it is, lead there, when in reality, the majority of us would still opt for the alternative deep down?

Remember that news-media distracts, divides, and confuses. Would this even be an issue had they not focused on Trump and the other endless streams of social fear? Probably not. They foster this mindset like so many others they foster. And it is super effective. So the reverse may also be super effective, just in the opposite, positive way.

We need to reverse the effect of that machine from almost totally negative and divisive to almost totally positive and uniting. We should realize that while we can't conceive of just how monumental the shift would be, or the results of it, certainly it feels very promising deep down.



I guess I see it like this: The vast majority of people would actually be on the same page if we cut through the rhetoric: Live, let live, do good for your neighbours, don't cause harm.

Almost all of our fears stem from some notion that some intangible threat from a generalized group will take those things away from us. These fears are so crippling and go so far in our minds that we FORGET these original principles, we lose awareness of them, and actually contradict them with our actions. Be that hateful speech, thought or physical attack. All stem from confused fear.

I guess I believe that the majority of people can and would change, with proper awareness. If they aren't there yet, the information has not been presented in the right way yet. In fact despite the wide variety of fears and irrational hatred, much of them could be wiped away in most people, if they were all to understand the same simple truths. That is, while we may think "There are many forms of fear and hate, we would have to tackle each in a different manner to solve each" but perhaps there is a single solution to most, so most irrational hate must crumble to this truth should one really grasp the truth.

The truth in fact wins EVERY battle of rationality, if it is allowed to enter the arena, because it is the truth. Not many are really letting it into their consciousness yet, it's there in fragments but it's not understood.


As someone else said, these shifts are non-linear. It just takes the right push in the right direction is really what this comes down to. Keep pushing everything that makes sense and is right, and it may happen.


I have to say, after reading some responses here and elsewhere, I am very optimistic, where I had given up all hope days before. I actually see that this shift we are describing is slowly happening - we are a part of it right here. It is happening, and we ARE in for unbelievable things together. There is much to see. Real impactful change and a future full of love and compassion beyond that could happen, together. We are so close to trying. That's why "they" are discrediting the news and information now, in advance - They know that this is humanity's chance. They have chosen inaction, destruction, unless they have proven to be truthful and productive in what THEY choose to talk about as politicians. It is high time we discard their opinions unless they are wiling to be honest.

There is, and has been for many decades, an active campaign within those entities that comprise government and those who mingle with it intimately, to stifle our awareness by way of newsmedia. They are trying to see this destruction through to certainty. Maybe they even have the fucking answers on how to fix this already, expecting to wipe most of us out and then "Flip the switch" back to a habitable state for themselves. I cannot say of the latter for certain, but it IS certain that they seek to destroy and thus must be destroyed, through non-compliance, through NON-AWARENESS. We must pay these kinds of people no mind, and surely they would have no power like this in the new united world we are visualizing.

35
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 01:04:39 PM »
I think a lot of people who have read any of what I've written here understand that it is a real glimmer of hope. I know some must based on responses, and also because as far as I can tell it is rational truth, and the mind of a scientist cannot deny rational truth.

Unity is our only hope, in fact, we surely understand this is true when we think about it.

So we must work towards it, we have to keep talking and throwing ideas out there. Any and all ideas, not all must be used but in contemplating all of them we may lead ourselves to further new ideas, and eventually a real solution. Then we can progress to the second daunting task: Using our newfound unity to fix what we've broken, or die trying.

I don't care if that unity comes by way of the idea I've presented. This is my best effort, these are my best thoughts. I HOPE someone can think of a better, easier solution, if not I humbly request anyone willing to consider this idea as optimistic will help discuss it and figure out how it can work. How do we achieve unity? This is a critical question.

36
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 12:38:22 PM »
Dearest 5to10 - if you think you know what actions are needed on the global level to fix AGW and planetary destruction then it's time to live those changes. Be the change you want to see.
I'd also love to hear your ideas as I want to include more actions on my personal side.

I feel a bit like a broken record saying it, but it will never stop ringing true until a feasible alternative is presented:

The only truth I can see is that media must have a paradigm shift for us to have any chance of recovery, such that overall unity in global consciousness towards clear positive purpose is possible, and that the most realistic way to do that is by communicating with the individual reporters/journalists, make them acutely aware of their influence on the situation and present them the clear moral choice. No, I do not know how exactly to do this, that's why I'm here talking with people. We can figure this out together, much like we must figure out the big problem together.

However I know they must collaborate with scientists as this happens to put together some kind of rough roadmap, such that they can eventually tell the world "Here it is, our best shot at reversing the damage we've done and a hopeful future. Everyone is asked to help in any way they can, here are the locations you can sign up to help and for what and when. Let us fight for our lives together, for all living things on Earth." etc.. Basically, media, as the eyes/ears/mouth of humanity and directors of global consciousness, must serve that purpose honorably and truthfully and abruptly raise global awareness in a positive, hopeful manner. Scientists must work together as well to provide the plans. I truly believe once unity occurs, our progress towards recovery will speed up immensely. Solutions will appear with much greater ease, implementation will obviously be a breeze in comparison, especially manpower related doubts.

You must realize, when we look at problems like the 10 million pumps in the arctic to refreeze it solution, we view them in the context of a divided world. Regardless of if it's a worthwhile endeavour, one of the issues with implementation was always manpower. Well, if we have the vast majority of humanity, the issues of manpower and as such time begin to disappear.

Ultimately one of the biggest difficulties will be reaching a consensus on what ideas to use, where to start.. But I believe a worthy consensus can be reached together if we aim for it.

I do think one of the best things we can do right now is spread this optimistic awareness to people who can understand, and will not freak out about it. The idea of global unity towards fixing this, and a better future. Getting people on the same page is the goal, and we can be doing that right now in many ways. Educate people, but always stay optimistic.



As for my idea "arising out of fear", it's not. I have no fear of facing this down, I don't fear death and I'm content with my life in almost every way these days, and I live a very simple, frugal life.

My idea arises out of hopeful optimism, and understanding that recognizing the fundamentals that need to be taken care of are crucial. Media paradigm shift is, in my mind, one of the fundamental first steps, a necessity.

I get that we can't just say "We are doomed soon unless we work together on a fleeting chance. Here are no solutions for you to work with. Figure it out." We must have clear focus in our plan, this is true. But perhaps we need to be unified for clear focus to find that plan.

37
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 10:46:50 AM »
It's rather hard these days to be both well informed and completely at all optimistic.

But if you mean, with Antonio Gramsci: Optimismo de la voluntad y pesimismo de la razón, then I can perhaps follow you, at least on some days.  :) :(


"Optimism of the will and pessimism of reason"


The duality of thought that I've often tried to find the words for.


My intellect screams that there is no hope. The rest of me says that 'this too shall pass', that 'every problem has a solution', and that 'it's always darkest near the dawn'.


Intelligence at war with cliches.
Intellect vs. life experience.
Knowledge against instinct.


Different mental processes produce divergent answers even though the data is equivalent. A single mind accepts the inevitable, yet it fights & struggles as though change might somehow prevail.
 
I can't believe there is any glimmer of hope, yet to do nothing, even with certainty that nothing  can possibility prevail, seems monstrous.


Optimismo de la voluntad y pesimismo de la razón
[/size]
[/size]Terry

And perhaps doing what you can is good enough. Maybe that is the whole point.

It certainly seems better than doing nothing at all. You can get into arguments about "It would take x amount of years longer for life to restart, if at all, if we fuck things up worse trying to stop it", but I would have to counter with "There is already an incredibly diverse, living world here, with an incredible sea of consciousness. Why not fight to preserve it, to improve it, if we cannot say it is impossible yet?"

Global unity has never occurred. We have no idea what we could accomplish if the majority of us came together, I imagine they would be great things. I am absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt certain (Even if partially through optimistic faith) that this is part of our only chance. Nothing will come of this perpetual state of division.



Beyond a shift in consciousness, what about quantum computing? A focused effort on a specialized rig that can offer us solutions based on the vast amount of data?

38
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 08:05:54 AM »
I would love if humanity got it and turned this freight train around. If it doesn't happen genocide is guaranteed. We are all culpable. Breathe deep, make the choice and carry on if you want to.
Chou chou...

I will go down trying everything I can for what feels right.

I know most people would do the same, if they TRULY understood the fundamental choice we have, and the imminent risk. Both are widely hidden still.

The fear, the disillusion.. Do not let it win.


I had a thought today - Picture our ability to find and implement solutions, and our awareness itself as affected by a system that has some manner of feedbacks much like climate.

Simplify it. At this point we are somewhat around a slightly positive overall trend towards heightened awareness. Slowly, we learn. Slowly, we unlock the answers and see the solutions. Many negative feedbacks exist (Media, lying politicians etc)

What if we ramped up the positive feedbacks and removed the negatives (all that divides and confuses)?

Is it not fair to say that we could be making WAY faster, way more impactful progress TOGETHER? Who knows how fast the answers will come if we can accomplish this.

Have hope, please! Keep trying. We have a chance to right this.

39
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 04:12:33 AM »
Great post Oddmonk.

The situation at hand strikes me with awe, confusion, fascination, frustration, but at least not fear.

Optimism is our only chance.

If everyone could make a choice based on this fundamental truth in their own minds...

Can we say that it is impossible to unify and work towards impactful solutions, and the possibility of a better, brighter future should we weather the literal and figurative storms? No? Then we must try by all means to do what we can to save this living world we are destroying.

Do we admit that it may be possible, but refuse to try? Then we are beyond the shadow of a doubt ENSURING it is impossible in the end (Even though we cannot say for certain that it is right now). Thus we are voting for ensured destruction in an uncertain situation, through inaction.

This is an individual and collective truth.

40
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:05:19 PM »
I smoke ... and drink Ayahuasca . These interactions have shown me how pliable this world is . Our thoughts .. all of them .. are the creative forces that make this world what it is . However the only thoughts we can truely change are our own .
Ayahuasca visions have shown me that this world is an illusion where the sleeping children of the Creator are given endless opportunity to awaken . As the bible says .. Adam slept. There is no reference to him (us) awakening . As Jesus says .. ye are all Gods !
  He also said 'judge not' .. but we always are , denying ourselves experience of our Divinity. When we allow ourselves , we too will see the 'New Jerusalem' and a world of love and light will embrace even the Donald Trumps  :)
  Where then our fears and worries about Climate change ?

I think they are there, just silenced by our indulgence, effective even in the subconscious. I do understand the sentiment. I'd also have to say that our fears and awareness on climate change are increasing and the effects are also speeding up/increasing, so this would agree with the idea that it is all from within.

It's all very heady stuff yet the truth seems to force its way through the murk if you are looking for it. We beat this from within, together.

41
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 10:32:16 PM »
Although it's an interesting rhetorical strategy to cast others as suicidal and murderers whilst trying to educate and influence towards a "unified consciousness", may I suggest that's it really not an effective consensus building strategy and is more likely to cause a negative response to your perspective and end goals.

But to entertain the concept, the reality is that this "murdering" has always been and will always be a central characteristic of humanity.  Humans have either transformed, subjugated, or murdered every form of flora and fauna that we've encountered in our brief tenure as a species.  The only forms of life to escape this intentional fate are the undiscovered, and even so we indirectly do the same things to them via our collective human activities within the biosphere.

Of course efforts should continue and need to ramp up considerably to shift energy consumption away from fossil fuels, and to repair and preserve what remains of the natural world for today and future generations.  Harnessing the media and other entities to assist with that is a perfectly reasonable and rational approach.  But the observational record of human behavior, and what we appear to understand about the physical forces we've unleashed, would strongly suggest that we are time limited as a species.  There is nothing murderous or suicidal about reaching that conclusion.

Your thoughts and intent are admirable, though likely Quixotic.

How do we reach consensus without relative unity in consciousness?

Certainly once the acute, real awareness is there not only of how impending the risk is but also of a legitimate albeit difficult hope, which by and large is nonexistent, there immediately becomes something murderous or suicidal about inaction within our minds. Why not follow that hope? It was awakened within me after I gave up and said "We're done for" and I'm sure it exists in others. I cannot come to another rational conclusion. Negative reaction is expected but also should be expected to fade quickly with understanding and replaced with optimism and a new purpose for many, a new being, we will be transformed.

If we try and succeed, if we heal the earth, the world thereafter will likely be glorious and unlike anything we can conceive in the present context. We would be together, working together to heal the world and each other. If we try and fail anyways, at least we go down together. If we do not try yet we know we could have, along with our uncertainty of destruction, we are simply suicidal and murderous at the same time. The only variable is if it IS impossible, which we cannot say for sure. So there is only one rational solution.

Again that is a difficult recognition but it is true.

We cannot say what the results of a global consciousness shift would be, so to say "It might end in chaos and panic and destruction anyways" is still not an out here. The results are also the same, so the risk is calculated, and not doing it is a worse choice as there doesn't appear to be any other option.

Rational beings who value the natural world which exists here now and could potentially be healed for the future must try. Rational beings who value the natural world but think it is better that we don't try so that "life has a better chance of restarting here after everything is gone" or anything else must accept that they are putting their stamp of approval on present destruction. But they must also admit, they do not know whether or not we could succeed in a true effort at recovery and future abundance, especially once you understand possible solutions exist like this idea I have presented, which is "unlikely but rational". That does make one somewhat murderous and suicidal.

42
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 10:01:55 PM »
The notion that the "media" can somehow be unified and evangelize a biosphere saving (and therefore humanity preserving) message is interesting but has little to no chance of success.  The media is a human construct not unlike most others:  composed of people with a multitude of perspectives, frames of reference, motivations, and missions. 

If we have observed and verified that current human societies, nations and communities are unable to move as one to recognize and mitigate existential threats to the biosphere and the future of humanity, there is no reason to believe that the "media" will achieve such a mind shift.

And these days, the media is a much broader sweep of individuals inputs due to evolution of technology and communication vehicles.  There is no central point of reference that defines media, and there is no possible way to centralize and standardize a singular message.

agree 100%

and a bit more bluntly said:

a) they sell advertising

b) they do it for money

nothing wrong with that but then it's part of the problem and certainly prevents any sound moves that go against the advertisers and those they live from are not the small ones who place tiny ads for a few bucks, it's those who do "Public Relation" more than advertising and in the millions, or did anyone ever fuel his car because of an exxon or british petroleum "AD" certainly no-one i know about. :-)

Irrelevant. What we are talking about is an abrupt shift not in climate, but in consciousness.

You cannot apply the evils of the inhuman media to the human reporters who compose it without taking into account their lack of awareness and understanding. The present state is not what the future paradigm shift would be. The effects of its influence and destruction would be reversed.

Whether or not that is enough, we cannot say right now. Whether or not you think fighting for that fleeting chance is the proper course of action is your own decision based on your own morals and values. But that is the truth and there is no avoiding it. It is not necessarily impossible, so stop acting like it is.

Presenting improbability as impossibility is fundamentally unscientific and deceptive.

Admit the possibility and that we must try everything now to seek that glimmer of hope, or admit that you are okay with it and through your inaction and your admission are directly helping it happen despite knowing if it's a certainty or not in the present.

Feel the cognitive dissonance melt away, friend. I don't doubt some people will spite me for making them acutely aware of the fundamental truths of their position and the decision they now have to make. This is already evident through the "Well its just unlikely. It just couldn't happen. The news sucks, how could we ever change it?" pushback given that I have presented a route to do that: Raise the awareness of the good, moral human beings which the newsmedia deceives into deceiving the rest of us.

We are good, just blind.

Though I feel for any of you reading who now carry the extra weight of these recognitions, it is for the better of you and all of us.

Improbable does not necessarily mean impossible. You know that is true. If any of this makes you feel any hope at all, feel any guilt at all, gain any understanding at all or any amount of desire to work together at all, consider the effects on a much wider audience.

43
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 09:26:37 PM »
Interesting thoughts, but -

> Humans are more biologically and cognitively instinctual vs rational, and the meaning of "rational" could be debated to no end.  What's rational to you may not be to me, and so forth. 

> There is no such thing as a "unified consciousness".  It's all relative, and subject to the same variables of frame of reference, motivation, meeting basic needs for self and loved ones.

What's irrational is the belief that any form of mammal is meant to persist ad infinitum.  That does not square with the biologic and fossil record.

I would argue that we have in many ways overcome many base instincts via heightened awareness. In conjunction do these things happen and this is evident throughout history and in the present.

Thus a gigantic shift in awareness is still totally rational.

It may be irrational to believe that "any form of mammal is meant to persist" but it is just as irrational to believe that life here NOW is 100%, certainly, no way out meant to disappear here.

The only rational perspective is "It's highly improbable we get out of this and save the natural world such that it can heal, but we cannot say it is impossible, thus there may be a fleeting chance we may not be aware of right now." and thus the only rational course of action is to look for that fleeting chance.

If you aren't doing that, you are long-term suicidal as well as presently and henceforth allowing the destruction of most or all living things as a result of individual and collective inaction EVEN STILL when it looks impossible (But we still can't say it is...). Perhaps you're okay with that, but that's on you and your values.

In essence, I'm doing to you as you read this and cognitive dissonance fades, what we need to do to the reporters. Everything I said is truth, despite any probabilities you can throw at me.

Now that you are acutely aware that you cannot scientifically propose that it is impossible, you have to do everything you can think of from this moment forward to help save the natural world with the rest of us who understand this, or admit you are okay with the natural world being murdered by yours and everyone elses inaction as a direct result of a lack of focused awareness on THE TRUTH in the present.

It was never inevitable. It still isn't. WE ARE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MAKING IT INEVITABLE IN OUR OWN MINDS.

You will understand if you are honest and rational that as I am speaking nothing but the truth, there is no rebuttal that cannot be easily cast aside with further truth, and I don't believe one is gifted truth for any purpose other than sharing it and trying to raise awareness for the better. The truth is not mine, it has nothing to do with me as a person, and I deserve no credit for its appearance within my consciousness should it be truth.

We must all accept and cannot avoid the truth, and the moral ramifications of the truth once it is clear to us. If we do not accept it, it is still as yet unclear.

It is our choice what to do with it.

44
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 09:13:04 PM »
This sums it up for me . . .

I'm trying to tell everybody including you scientists how to do that. Awareness must first be raised in those who make up the cogs of the global awareness machine. Awareness of their role and thus perhaps guilt for their role. We have to work on how to do that ASAP coupled with real optimism on how things can progress thereafter, if we are together.

A hard, painful, psychologically devastating awareness where they are eventually faced with a clear moral choice. And most people are good, deep down, just misguided and lacking awareness. I have seen no reason to believe otherwise in my travels. Surely the majority will not psychologically be able to support "the beast" anymore with their distracting, pointless, disjointed, divisive diatribe which composes the vast majority of available news. If they are clear on what MUST be reported on, how could they do anything else if they are good and rational? Once a mass consciousness shift starts there, the current destructive state of consciousness (and any entities wishing to maintain it) will be helpless to stop it rippling outwards.

We who are for good and admit a highly improbable chance is still a chance need to attack and use the machine in the opposite way that it is being used now, and it will have the opposite effects, unity rather than division. Real change rather than stagnation, nay, acceleration of our self-destruction. Not fear, division, confusion and certain doom, but TRUE hope, focus, purpose, direction, the promise of a new, compassionate, loving future TOGETHER rather than a horrifying legacy of division and hatred.

It is your choice, all of our choice which future we accept in the present, no matter how stacked the odds are, that is certain to help fulfill it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Many an impossible poker hand was won on the river.

45
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 08:49:30 PM »
The notion that the "media" can somehow be unified and evangelize a biosphere saving (and therefore humanity preserving) message is interesting but has little to no chance of success.  The media is a human construct not unlike most others:  composed of people with a multitude of perspectives, frames of reference, motivations, and missions. 

If we have observed and verified that current human societies, nations and communities are unable to move as one to recognize and mitigate existential threats to the biosphere and the future of humanity, there is no reason to believe that the "media" will achieve such a mind shift.

And these days, the media is a much broader sweep of individuals inputs due to evolution of technology and communication vehicles.  There is no central point of reference that defines media, and there is no possible way to centralize and standardize a singular message.

Well that is our only hope to unite consciousness towards pressing matters.

Certainly newsmedia comprises of many various views and opinions. I would wager to guess that most individuals within it are rational and the rest can be lead to rationality by way of mass majority influence.

It would not be an instantaneous shift. The key is raising the awareness of the majority, in fact directing awareness to a specific place: You are the ones with the power to change this, but only together.

I realize the logistics are unimaginable. Yet we stlll can't say impossible, thus unless anyone else has a better idea as to a starting point with a higher probability of success (however low this one is)... What are we waiting for? Impactful work ASAP requires unified consciousness, media directs consciousness. The only weakness of the beast that is the media machine, is the humanity within the reporters as individuals and the epiphanic awareness waiting to be aroused within them.

Act now however we can or accept that your certainty of our inevitable demise is based on high improbability, not impossibility, and thus your inaction is irrational and tantamount to longterm suicide or the murder of future generations.

It is time to start feeling the guilt we deserve and not accepting "the inevitable". Call it the highly probable, and lay down and die then, if you must. Reporters/editors/all moral individuals within newsmedia must be made aware that they are doing the same and will thus slowly come to realize their direct, serious influence on the situation AS INDIVIDUALS, not just as a collective. They are not aware yet, they don't understand their individual role in the big picture, they are not subject to the related pangs of conscience yet or they would be facing the moral dilemma therein with every single story they publish.

Logically this must lead to something big, and we must admit that barring unknown technological, spiritual, or exo-planetary black swans that we have no more likely or optimistic way to start something here.

46
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 07:24:59 PM »
In the bible, beast are used to represent kingdoms and governments. The number seven always represents completeness or perfection. Therefore six represents something that comes up short or is imperfect. Repeating the six three times for emphasis shows just how imperfect the human political system has been. The book of Daniel which goes into much detail about governments, explains at 2:44 that," In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever."
Part of Armageddon involves God "bringing to ruin those ruining the Earth." Rev. 11:18
After this war of Armageddon, the 1000 years begins, not before.

even though i do not believe in the old man with the beard i love that book and if everyone would read and follow all the wisdom in there (not every word is wisdom but almost all the wisdom is somewhere) we would be far far far better of.

from your except i guess that you did not read that up just to reply ;) interesting in many aspects (positively of coxurse)

To do that takes reading between many lines. There is certainly much wisdom in the Bible, there is certainly much self-interest driven scripture. I noticed in Revelations that the writer (John) says that if anyone takes out of the book, that much will be taken out of what's written in the book of life about them. If anyone adds lies to it, they will suffer the plagues as an individual. (The book of enoch has been removed, I think it's only rational to presume baloney was added out of self-interest many times)

Disregarding interpretations, it seems obvious to me now that the writer knew that evil individuals or groups of individuals would distort the bible and fill it with crap. Thus, of course it comes off as pure fiction from an outside perspective. However there truly is a vast abundance of wisdom within. Again, Revelations is indescribably apt for defining a "general" idea of present events using figurative/symbolic language. It is not irrational to contemplate the ideas within, even if only for a different perspective on the matter of what certainly does appear to be a looming apocalypse.

I continue to stand by the notion that we who are aware and willing to try must awaken the many individual reporters as soon as possible to their crucial positions of influence at a crucial point in time. They are human, and humans are good, but misguided! They are just unaware of their role as individuals and how that relates to the collective in the bigger picture.

A media call for unity will create and amplify unity elsewhere: in science, in industry, in humanity.

I guess I'm just hoping someone will take this idea and make it work, because I really don't want to have to write this letter I'm proposing and get the reporter mailing lists myself and try to influence a consciousness shift there. I do have a way with words when it matters, but I don't have the roadmap that we need to follow to make changes. I don't think anyone does, but you scientists are the cartologists, whether or not the map is complete.

The media would need to fully support the most monumental collaboration of scientists working together towards that map, or at least some progress, and as many people as are willing to support in any way possible. Labour, production, everything. The media needs some kind of map to show everyone, essentially, complete or not. "This is what we have to do, let's go world" and report only on progress and what we need to do, focus on communication/information.

We have to start talking together about global scale, collective solution implementation, those of us who want to try. Dig deep. You must understand that things are only so bad because we have never been unified. I cannot foresee a bleak future if we achieve the kind of unity required to weather this storm. The world would be thrust into a state of new awareness for good, unified, past these petty issues. They would be cast to the wayside thereafter.

We cannot apply current pessimistic outlooks to that possible new state. Perhaps together we could figure out our population issues and how to manage resources together such that we all have abundance and respect the natural world as it provides for us, perhaps we could see things so much clearer. Who can imagine the beautiful things a unified world with unified goals could achieve? It's beyond my imagination. Hold on to that as you work towards a solution.

The black swan may in fact be human awareness itself.

47
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 07:14:18 PM »
I have lived and worked in many countries either in or exiting from dictatorships.  I failed to find one either intelligent or benevolent.
Unfortunately for our survival as a species, intelligent benevolent people don't seem to lust after power. There must be an evoluionary reason for that.
Yes, intelligent benevolent people probably see that many intelligent benevolent leaders of the past were assassinated. They are ousted quickly in a machine that is mostly evil and built on deception.

Alone, an intelligent benevolent person is weak. Unity is the only way, unity unlike we've never seen. This starts with us as individuals, all of us, and we are slowly getting there despite what the media portrays.

48
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 06:14:24 PM »
In addition to considering the media's role in perpetuating the over-consumption economy in the developed world, you also need to realize that ~2 billion of our fellow earthlings live in complete poverty.  For them, the challenge is helping them skip over the consumption economy and move right into a balanced, post-growth and sustainable means of existence.
THeir poverty is a result of inequity, which again is a result of differences in global consciousness, which are caused by newsmedia.

The main point is, news has to get their shit together

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: February 28, 2017, 03:05:25 AM »
Re post #2949

I am so sad to see this kind of garbage cropping up here on the ASIF: not only a blatant ad hominem attack, which is the last refuge of those who have no argument, but smearing an entire profession ("mainstream" scientists).

Please can we get back on topic?

Ignore it, but careful not to get lost in the details of individual threads either. We need unity and clear direction right now, else we accept our fate as inactive observers. Some of you are content with that, fearing it is inevitable, others are not. It is not scientific to say getting through this is impossible, thus I try.

Simply posting or commenting on updates like ice extent serves little more purpose than further confirmation of our trajectory and its likely conclusions, shared amongst those who are already aware and who feel helpless to do anything, or don't want to.

Thus if you give a damn about trying at all, we all must focus on how to unify global consciousness, which must undoubtedly be the first step in truly impactful changes, or admit that we are doing no more than watch a train wreck unfold with popcorn at the ready.

Offtopic or not, I will continue to say that a great jump in awareness is NECESSARY in the the many minor players (reporters, editors, etc), the vast majority, who compose the entirety of newsmedia. I am more than willing to go offtopic here to raise awareness of that.

The details in this thread and others must be combined to paint an irrefutable (beyond irrationality which can fade in time) picture of where we are headed very soon, and the impact that they as individual reporters have when they do anything but report on this TOGETHER.

The key here is a step beyond saying to a reporter "Here is the information, it looks like we're screwed" and having them just casually drop it in somewhere, it's forcing the awareness upon them that they as individuals, and thus collectively, are the biggest influence regarding the regulation of global consciousness. Any time they report on anything other than the pressing matter at hand, they're letting it happen. Before they were so acutely aware, they would have had no moral decision to make, still in a way oblivious to their total influence as an individual, and their ability to spark a change. AFTER they are aware that in a way, it is all up to them right now, everything changes.

Mass campaign of thrusting awareness and an obvious moral decision on individual reporters is all I can think of. We need unity in consciousness ASAP. Newsmedia revolution through the many individuals seems the only logical way. They are human beings with morals and consciences, unlike the ENTITIES of newsmedia.

I hope someone passes this idea on to someone who can use it better than I.

50
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 01:41:04 AM »
Quote
Do not put your trust in princes; Nor in a son of man, who cannot offer salvation.
                                                                                                       
                                                                                                         King David

If you want to bring the bible into it, the position we are in now mirrors much of revelations from a figurative perspective, and salvation from our dire situation will come, followed by 1000 years of peace, so that quote is inapplicable.

I live with devout Christians who take the bible somewhat literally, I had the idea of reading it and seeing if there were figurative parallels to our present situation. I am also openminded and spiritual and accept parts of many religions/ideologies as being rational and perhaps truthful, just deeply figurative. I will accept and promote parts of Christianity which are sensible documentations of truth (Do unto others, for an easy example), and not the bits which are clearly man-made, self-serving (for the writer) literature.

In revelations, preceding armageddon is a thousand year period of peace, after which Satan returns to delude and deceive nations again, which is what appears to precede full on armageddon.

In the present (according to my figurative interpretation), people worship "the beast". they say "How can the beast be challenged? How powerful it is!" which is exactly what people say about government and big media.

Most are deceived. The mark of the beast on the forehead or the hand: The dim light of TV's and computer screens, the cell phones in our hands where we interact with "the beast".

In fact the figurative language of the bible would mirror the idea i have laid out: The aspect of the beast which speaks for it is critically wounded, the prostitute which rides the beast (human indulgence, at its core) burns as the beast looks on in horror and the merchants woe their inability to sell their gold, silver (indulgences) and the like. If the majority of mankind unites now, surely they will realize they must stop seeking such indulgences from "the merchants".

Someone attacks the beast with a sword from their mouth (the written or spoken word) and the beast strikes back but is felled, after which that individual leads humanity into something of a golden era of peace for 1000 years.


I thought of this "make the reporters acutely aware" idea naturally, before looking at revelations today and saw that it would seem to mirror the idea of taking on "the beast" by way of striking at news-media first, all a precursor to this supposed 1000 years of peace.

All of the "1/3rd of the seas die, 1/3rd of the land animals" etc etc. happen prior to the beast being felled, so the current state of the world somewhat mirrors that as well. Figuratively, the story within revelations is quite easily applied to our present state and the recent events preceding it, it was quite uncanny and I was honestly surprised (Other examples off the top of my head include the "horses" of the armies which shoot flame out the front but are also injurious from the rear - tanks and warships, kill with projectiles in front (the obvious) and exhaust emissions in the back [the less obvious but also injurious]. It describes "the beast" as looking like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion - a leopards camoflauge is its signature, it's hard to see.. A bears feet are destructive, it levels the earth it treads. A lions roar is unmistakeable, it captures the attention.)

In any event, according to Revelations (And I can't see why self-proclaimed Christians don't get this), this cannot be armageddon because we haven't had a 1000 year period of peace. What Revelations means for the vast majority of them is pain and suffering for their blind indulgence and piety to "the beast".



While I know this is very unscientific by todays standards, let's remember here that the great minds of old were not afraid to, and in fact sought to consider spirituality along with scientific method. By doing so this morning I again was blown away by the stark parallels within an ancient book.

Pages: [1] 2