Carbon Cycle

The carbon cycle describes the flow of carbon. We can put mass numbers to many parts and it show how much trouble we humans are in. It has not silently slid up on us, but few are willing to take action, likely because it is going to force big change on us.

We humans are so good at reproducing that there are now 7.7billion of us. The carbon cycle shows failure started with 3.0 billion. (~1960) We are now severely overpopulated, and the crunch is coming soon. No one is taking action. Oh well, we are a species in transition, going through a boom and die off cycle. We are about to go into a die off phase, the survivors will found the next species. Oh well.

All I can do is to continue, as I will soon die off anyway. That and taxes is about all we can be certain of.

The skeptics of this; there are many, will come to understand in old age. Oh well. One child policy is our best hope, but the religious will not listen because they have given up logic. It is logic that is the great hope; but after the logic comes decision, and then action. And decision and action are not always driven by logic... or economy. If it is not right, the price does not matter. If there are two choice, the cheaper or easier may not be the best one, but that is what our government and so many will select. It does not matter, it is only money.

Carbon Tax in a political concept that generates revenue for the government and has little effect on the carbon demand. It is a tax, not a strong solution to the problem. No one is willing to take the first step, that is to outline a plan, teach that plan, implement that plan. It will need to tackle ignorance, non logical thinking, and population growth. One Child policy, is not enough of a cut, but it will be, after we existing die off. It is the only way. Religions need to be removed. Who will do it?   

Asymertical Thinking

 Conformation Bias or is it non-reciprocal or asymmetrical thinking. No, it is I am right, and if you do not agree, then you are just wrong...

Steven Novella

Currently, I am reading The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe which is a lovely book, but it contains some inaccuracies. Yet these same inaccuracies are talked about using some of the same bad argument/ logical failures that he describes.

Circular logic or what? We are biased by our beliefs. We learned these from our culture, education, and we practice these without seeing these for what they are. As Thomas Paine said, to argue with a person who has renounced reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

When Novella talks about GMO and Autism/vaccinations he never considers that there could be a link; a third condition such as hyper-sensitivity, akin to allergy that only effects a tiny percent of the population. Both cases for are without clear evidence either way; however, there are anecdotes that suggest a correlation. Without allowance for these, he sweeps reality and his arguments under the bus of his ego. We humans are not uniform, like the medical and chemical industry likes to think. Consider allergies as one example.

It is like the useless ass covering medical direction: do not take if you are allergic. You cannot know until you try it... so what value is the statement? It is ass covering removing the liability.    

Asymmetrical thinking comes from not being symmetrical or reciprocal in the study of ethics with no authority foundation. (no god ethics) This is to say that we all want peace, security, economy, stability to live and grow. In order to have this, we need to provide that to others, aka reciprocal conditions to others, or symmetrical conditions, depending on the author. Do to others and you would they do to you sort of thinking, which goes back to and likely before recorded history.

It all does not matter, for in the end we all just die anyway.

Competition vs Aggression

Competition vs Aggression

Is competition a gateway to aggression? I think probably it is one gateway, if control is not developed.

Many people think competition is the greats thing. Bill Gates for one. Others think as I do, like the Quakers, Mennonites, and similar pacifist groups, that competition is the gateway to aggression as they stimulate similar emotions, and those emotions, passions need to be tempered with reason, and that sadly does not always happen. As a result we see aggression occurring, especially when one is not fair, the opponent may express this through violence. This is common in youth, and it is a struggle for coaches, especially when dangerous weapons are in play such as in archery. Life is not fair, and everyone needs to learn that. Many cannot handle success or loss. They are both a problem.

We see hazing occurring in school sports teams, and while that may seem OK, both sides learn that violence is OK. Not good learning for either the hazer, or the hazed. Once again we see competition as the gateway to aggression. There are some who are aggressive that say it is survival of the fittest, but as we see in the US, a gun makes the weak willed dangerous. Not a safe situation. As old Colt said, I created an equalizer.

US nationalism is going to excess and has caused aggression against it's neighbours and the world. In the north of Pakistan, the US has caused somewhere north of 125,000,000,000$ damage in bombing and war raids, killed 75,000, displaced 2,000,000 and the Taliban are as strong as ever. US has provided about 1,300,000,000 in aid, that the US also directs the spends in developing and backing the Pakistan Army. Some infrastructure will remain after the army no longer needs it, but it is built for the army, not the civilian use. And this, the US calls aid. How can they rational expect cooperation? More aggression.

On a human level, addiction has a physical component, and a psychological component, when combined, the human has no reasonable chance of defeating while using. That is the problem, one must get clean and lose the desire to use, before they can have a chance of recovery. They also must never use again, if they wish to stay clean. That is the problem for food addicts, we must eat to live. And to that problem, modern science and the medical profession has no real answer. They say that used as directed, opioids are not a problem, but once addicted, we lose the ability to not use, so the medical people say it is not our problem. They do not take reality into account. This is passive aggression, institutionalized. Addiction is real. And it is the competition, elimination of competition is aggression. It is that I am the best attitude that causes aggression and unreality.

So as we go through a life with failures, we need to keep our spirits up, depression is also real. We need psychological support, too know we are right. Life is unsatisfactory, our thinking is the cause, the solution is to change our thinking. It is not the situation that cause us strife, but our thinking about the situation.Religions provide a thinking for you; Buddhist and Stoics* provide a logical alternative way of thinking. In the end we realize that much of the common wisdom is just wrong; we need to unlearn, and relearn the right thinking in this overpopulated world where every one is selling, many are selling bullshit. We each are on our own; but there is logic to guide us through this restructuring.

  

   

 * also include several other early Greek schools in this case.

added: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46301059
"They believe peace is achieved by dismissing concepts of ownership, competition, vanity and greed."

Irrelevance

Irrelevance 

How does one stay relevant in an over-populated world? Once we accept overpopulation as being real, that is to say that spaceship earth can support perhaps 3.5b peoples long term, based on Co2 absorption capacity, and we are now 7.7b, how does one stay relevant?

Well first our population will clime to I do not know, 10-12 billion, and then the general population will get the idea, Co2 will be 550 to 600ppm, death will be common from just going to sleep without a forced air device.. Now know as a CPAC. Oh well, it is a peaceful way to go. Our population will start to decline... but the decline will be in the industrial areas where life is easier, physically. Those that work hard physically will be those that are better adapted to poor air quality, self selecting, those who are adapted will be the ones who are able to work harder... Humans will survive; but the next species will have better lungs, to be able to live in a high Co2 environment. They will be the next species... new and improved. Perhaps after this version of humans are gone, the earth can return to low Co2, after the plants take over and capture carbon... or not.

With a population of 7.7b, how important is an one single life? Not to the statistics, but to each individual life, life is important until it is not, or it become a negative. Canadian right to die legislation needs to loosen up a bit. The Catholic facilities need to get on board, and the right to request self termination at a future time or condition needs to be in the legislation. I, with a deadly condition, must be able to leave a directive to terminate when I reach a non-compos and/or painful stage. That extends life as far as is rational.

Using the Frye standard of evidence, which is something less than scientific proof level of proof, we can test all claims for truth. Does god exist, no evidence; therefore not likely. Is the world flat or round, the flats lose, as round is the only real possibility. Vaccinations, well vaccinations work but giving them too soon may also cause damage. Proof of no damage is not been proven. Cholesterol, well they have shown that people with lower cholesterol live longer, but not lowering peoples cholesterol cause them to live longer. Their quality of life is lower so suicide and self termination is higher, overrunning any benefit. Oh well. GMO do not allow the land to produce more crops, it does allow one of two crops in a row to produce more, but moisture is usually the limiting factor. The land then must be rested or rotated. There are some areas where intensive farming is possible, but these are rare.

Fire, climate change, dry winds, forest management is a big issue in some areas around inhabited areas. But if one level of government is unwilling to allow direct management, they are then responsible... as I see it.

Trump's policies seem nihilistic, without meaning and purpose, but what do I know? More than average, I expect. Placing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum just raises prices; placing quotes would have greater impact if his intent is to raise internal production. But without understanding the environment, and putting a price of pollution, WTF.

A one child policy worldwide is the only move now that makes sense along with a few years of freezing migration everywhere. Muslim countries must deal with the Muslim refugees, and there still is no god. Oh well, reality is a bitch...   

Nationalist or Globalist

It is Important to understand the effect on Canada of this document. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-21106/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds

We live in an overpopulated world. Immigration and refugees. both economic and political are going to increase, people seeking a better place to live, where their homeland is more overpopulated than they perceive other areas to be will try to migrate. North America was founded by refugees, many were religious and philosophical refugees, and some economic refugees. The cause of refugees is not important, but we need to understand that they are making the decision to migrate at a time when the whole earth is already overpopulated. The is no available lands that are not needed for solar powered carbon capture.

In 1960 there was 3b people, and we produce 20bb of oil. The earth Co2 was more or less stable. Since then, the population has risen, oil production has grown, and the Co2 level has risen. There is little we can do about the carbon dioxide level... underground storage is leaky... just look at the natural gas storage in California. So what is the solution? We know that the fuel demand is not easily reduced with price, making carbon tax a ideal money generation tax but a poor reduction of use tax. Carbon use has become tied to population. The only thing we can do is reduce population.

So how are we going to do this, and where is it going to be done at? If we are a true "Nationalist" we will keep all non producing people out of our country, and keep our population low so we will not need a world one child policy, and similar measures, in our country.

So the US has created a "public charge" concept, a class of spending that the government must pay. All welfare, medical for the poor, feed for the poor, education, and the like. All they want to let in are the wealthy, working, educated people. That is going to put a load on Canada to accept the ones that do not qualify to the US. We are going to get the US rejects.

If we are a nation of the future, we need to become selective of who we let in. We are going to need to become "Nationalistic" to protect Canada.

Rational... well not so much.

Barbed wire, used properly, can be a beautiful sight. A statement that brings to mind: " I love the smell of napalm in the morning." I am predicting that the first statement will become a cult classic, like the second is/was. 

Live in according to human nature: human nature is rational in the Stoic ideal, therefore humans should live rationally. Well that is the Stoic belief of concept anyway. Once we start to eliminate all the coping systems, we may need to examine a "philosophy for life" or should that be a "philosophy in life" or of life.

Trudeau and the liberals say that diversity is Canada's strength; others say that diversity is a burden, and some of the new immigrants will overload this country. I personally am more concerned about the drag the natives place on this country, with the taxes and debt load to support them.

Science make it clear there is little to define a meaning of life, and our only real purpose is to produce the next generation, which we have overdone, with overpopulation since 1960 based on atmospheric Co2 levels, so we are free to live, learn, and understand the human condition. To live rationally seems to be the plan. Now WTF does that really mean? And we note that the native reproduce much faster than the white population.

Until now, most people in the world have used coping systems, religions as guides to life. Today, most may be true still, but there is a cutting edge breaking free without a religion or state directing life. We are absurdly free to decide how to live; now it is our responsibility to decide and to do it.We are being held back by taxes and slow to change bureaucracy. We are being held back by the religious mess of the immigrants. We are being held back by religious education and ignorance of religions being pushed onto the young of those religious. They do not realize that they are using coping systems, not reality.

Recently, well, within the last century, Existentialism has pushed this freedom view, but had little to offer for advise or caution. Two millennia ago, the Stoics provided directions that realized freedom, and these two view result in similar outlooks but from different approaches. Buddhism also arrives at a similar end state, once we strip it of all the ritual and supernatural stuff, as the Modren Western Buddhist movement has tried to do. This may suggest that the outcome is correct, not necessarily the method of arrival, but that does not matter either.

The founding principal must be rational, or rationality. This, along with prudence, the ability or skill to make right choices. These, when understood and adopted will end all religious thinking. Oh well, if the Co2 does not get us first.  

To Comment or not to Comment

It is always a question, to comment of not to comment on other blogs. It can draw traffic, or just bullshit rhetoric. Noise. I got into a discussion with a (((punk))) on an atheistic lite blog. I did not realize that three brackets around the name (((name))) was a )))far right radical((( symbol or (((Jewish))) symbol; or I would not have responded. The young fellow was missing any logic, but Oh well, what do we expect from a ((( punk)))... rhetoric only.

Now let me say that I do not have anything against jews, but they seem to want special treatment because they are Jew. They invaded Palestine after WW2, for the second time and expect peace. Our ancestors invaded North America, and we expect the native to be peaceful... well where is the logic there... and what do we get. Open season on natives... 

Back when I was young, and at University, when the slide rule was common for calculation, when we need to track mantissa and exponent, there were rules of calculation. Significant, potential error, were considered at most calculations.  Buckingham's Pi theory ruled, and occasionally the question was questioned as to the value of the question. There was one more; is the data real or noise? Is the data significant? Slide rule fourth digit, the smugged number, the beer induced laboratory experiment with totally fudged data, where the data had no value, the write up and calculations were all that was marker. Lots of those at Uni. Is the data real or imaginary?

Where the data does not pass Buckham's Pi theory, and the data has no checksum like component, then, should be considered as suspect. That pitches our much of the studies and potentially bogus. Oh well. I think that we need to evaluate the things we have lost with the computers, and no error calculations. Check sums. Also tests for data validity. Too much is just bullshit.

In taking on a study that goes against our interests, companies often tear down the author. The study may be correct, but the author has exposure, so it easy to discredit the author, rather than the work. We see this frequently in diet studies, like Tim Noakes, and NHS vaccinate Andrew Wakefield for example.  Noakes was correct, while Wakefield paper had minor errors in the calculations. Wakefield was destroyed, even though his data shows that 18 autistic children had MMR vaccination at less than 12 months age. It found a common element with a cluster of autistic children. It also showed some form of IBS was also common to all. It cannot say anything about cause either way.

All this does not matter, there is much bullshit on the net, and it all should be exposed for what it is, bullshit. But so is religion. We now understand that all religions are just group coping mechanisms. There are better ways to cope, reality, understanding, truth, and those systems that intend on exposing the truth, mainly science.