How Yoga, Homeopathy and Alchemy Make Sense

The personality type that goes for homeopathy, naturopathy, yoga, zen and alchemy is not merely "magical thinkers" and is not merely people utterly incapable of logic or any semblance of a concern for truth. It's far, far more specific than that.

The underpinnings of the Gaian personality type are all about trade and interaction and continuity. If you put two things together then they MUST interact and they MUST have a lasting imprint on each other (mutual contamination) due to continuity. And two things brought together are always together, which is of course one of the laws of magic.

Hell, alchemy is trading off the properties of X for the properties of Y. Want green steel? Mix in copper because it's green, or mix in leaves because they're green, or mix in green dye ... water + metal = mercury! Alchemy is magical dissociation and reassociation, nothing more. Elixir of life is made from liquid gold because gold doesn't corrode but lasts.

By ingesting liquid gold, you ingest the property of not corroding and lasting, rendering you immortal! The same way that if you ingest fat then you become fat, if you ingest meat then you become a muscleman and if you ingest sugar you become a chocolate covered waffle. You eat natural things because you want to be natural, thus ingesting the naturalness.

Now, homeopathy works by taking a poison that mimics the disease you have then diluting OUT the poison until it's non-existent. then by magical association (ie, mutual contamination) it follows that what you have left is an ANTI-poison, and this perfectly shaped anti-poison will cure you of whatever you had to begin with. Simple and oh so comprehensible.

What is yoga? It's breathing exercises for long life. Why? Because living things breathe so by practicing breathing you're making yourself better able to able to breathe which means you're able to live longer. If you could practice heartbeats, yoga would be about that. Instead, it's about "not wasting" heartbeats by lowering your heart rate. It's all about trade.

Incidentally, Gaians are also sensualists and also pro-poverty. This combines in the bizareness of "no-food dinners" where insane nutters prepare dinner then waft the smells around so they can comment on its deliciousness, then NOT eat it but continue starving. Low-calorie, don't you know?

Personally, the only pathy I believe in is telepathy. Also cyberpathy in Elf Sternberg's sense of someone who has an intuitive magical understanding of technology. I also believe in magic, but this is not enough. And I also believe in one golden glance of what should be. It's a kind of magic.

Magic? Magic!

The Internet's Fascist New World Order

They call themselves "moderators" but you'd have to be an idiot to believe they have any resemblance to moderators in religious or political debate groups. Of course, being being retarded idiots, most people actually take the name "moderator" seriously. Most people disgustingly RESPECT moderators.

In real life, moderators don't go around with guns and a license to kill spraying bullets at anyone they don't like the way cops and Nazis do. In real life, moderators' actions aren't invisible to the participants the way Stasi's are. In real life, moderators can't execute "power plays" to kick out other moderators and "usurp power".

In real life, moderators don't go around with magic gags that can erase everything you've ever said. In real life, moderators don't go around complaining about how the (few) people who hate them are whiners, enemies of the state, and the disgruntled few who are astroturfing anyways.

Real life moderators of discussion groups have ZERO connection with internet "moderators" of internet forums. You might as well be trying to compare a warm breeze in the middle of winter to the very fires of Hell.

It just proves how condemnable, contemptible, and downright Evil the bulk of humanity is that when faced with the raw vileness of "moderators" that they shrug their shoulders and say ... "well, unmoderated forums are crap anyways" as if fascism and right-libertarianism were the only political ideologies and the only forms of social control around.

Internet participants EXPECT Evil. It's just a question of whether it's right-libertarian slavery and omnipresent death or fascist servitude and homicide everywhere. 6 eggs on one hand or half a dozen ovoids on the other. And why do they expect Evil? Because programmers are overwhelmingly Evil and/or worthless retarded morons.

Ward Cunningham created his "noble experiment in totalitarian communism" which failed utterly once it scaled up about two to three orders of magnitude (I'm being generous). And what did he resort to when it failed? FASCISM! Because of course there's no middle ground, and certainly there's no alternative. Utmost marxism and fascism (and psychopathy) are the ONLY alternatives on offer.

Because of course, the Internet is NEW and it's not like the THREE MILLENIA of human political history have anything to teach anyone at all!! No, rather than start with democracy or shoot beyond it for anarcho-communism, we need to go BACK to fascism or FEUDALISM or murderous infanticidal tribalism!

And of course, the fact that these worthless retarded cretins are resurrecting dead and buried ideologies from political history doesn't imply that political history is RELEVANT to the Internet! No, we'll bake our cake, sell it, and then we'll use it as collateral to get a bank loan! Where have I heard that one before?

Fuck, I despise people who can't do logic. They should all burn in Hell! If you're going to do politics fucking do it right. And if you're not then you'd better stand out of the way of people who CAN do politics, and bend over to get the ass-rape you deserve!

Against: Food Miles and Vertical Farming

Greens being idiots believe that the cost of goods and services are ultimately based on energy. They are totally wrong. Everything's cost is based on labour. Energy ceased to be a factor sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. In other words, they are living in a bygone age.

Back in the dinosaur era from which they hail, the value of the economy was precisely proportional to the energy consumption of the economy. Industrial planners MEASURED the economy's output by its
energy input! But ever since then, the two measures have radically diverged.

Green foodists and local-vores are dinosaurs and maladaptive. They believe in some "food miles" crap when trucking has not and never will be an issue. They're the same breed of people as the futurologists who believe in molecular disassemblers and recovery of "resources" from garbage dumps (something which will never happen as recovery from seawater is easier). It's people who don't understand entropy and what the term 'ore' means.

To sum up, nowadays the economy has fuck all to do with energy. It's a non-issue which doesn't and never will matter anymore.

What's worse is these local-vores go the extra mile of advocating the destruction of cities, which of course they totally deny. But let's face it, they want to stick uninhabited buildings in the middle of the city. When "city" is defined as a congregation of PEOPLE.

Well, you know what? The sublimation or evaporation of cities (aka, their destruction) is never going to happen. Never fucking going to fucking happen. Put it to a song and sing it. NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. Even when humans are extinct and AIs rule the world, they'll do so in CITIES.

I hate pretend-rural fucks. Hey, here's a clue: 90% of rural people want to live in cities if given a choice. And here we have gutless city boys who want to destroy cities and remake them into the country, rather than just fucking moving there!

Nothing In Nature Is Good

Narcissistic Dog

A friend of mine told me how she hates her father's dog. Her father's a Narcissist and she hates him for it. Her father loves the dog. Now, considering that Narcissists by definition can't love anyone but themselves, how can her father love the dog? Oh that's right, because the dog's a Narcissist.

Her father loves how the dog constantly fights the other pets for his attention and constantly begs and begs for his attention too. Narcissist loves Narcissist, who'd have thought it? And my friend knows and hates Narcissists and hates the Narcissistic animal.

Symbols

I could go on and on about how various animals are symbols of Evil. Rats, leeches, snakes and roaches are symbols of psychopathic Evil. Lions and peacocks and swans are symbols of Narcissistic Evil, just at different Presence levels. Dogs ... are actually RWAs. Think of the press, proudly calling themselves "watchdogs" and scornfully condemned as "lapdogs".

Either way, the press are fucking RWAs. Right-Wing Authoritarians who care only for social norms, above and beyond even their own exploitation of those norms. Nowadays, after a whole generation has been raised on Green propaganda, you have plenty of RWAs who spout Green propaganda.

Animals are symbols of Evil for a reason. And the reason is simple and obvious. It's becaues THEY ARE EVIL. Not all of them, just most of them. I mean, cows and moose aren't Evil. Elephants probably aren't, most of them. Sheep while pretty vile probably aren't Evil. Bats aren't, except for vampire bats. But honestly, how many animals are altruistic?

It's not about brainpower either. Owls are symbols of Good. Owls eat rats. Owls are pretty specialized eaters. Or how about otters? The curious little things. But more importantly, there is pretty solid evidence that personality can be traced back all the way to infancy.

Evidence

First is the fact that every Good person can trace at least some of their ideals all the way back to their first reliable memories. And this is so even for Good people with *very good* memories.

Second is the fact that words which parents use to describe toddlers can often be categorized according to personality. And while the attribution of those words is never reliable due to the weight of the parent's expectations (or their simply being Evil thus finding Good incomprehensible) the words themselves can be reliably categorized as Good or Evil.

'brat' is a word that means Narcissist. Just at a very, very low Presence level. Of course, half the time, parents accuse their children of being brats because the parents are Narcissists. But never mind that, the important thing is that it reliably means 'narcissist'. But I digress, the point is that NATURE is Evil.

Cats

Dogs like I said are Evil. They obey us because they think we're their masters, their ALPHAS. The same for horses that think 'the human' or humans in general are the herd stallion. Cats ...? Probably not. They seem like Gaians to me, neither Good nor Evil. Theoretically, all they care about is eating and fucking and drugs, and killing birds and mice. Except they don't organize their lives about it like psychopaths. They care more about blending in like Gaians do.

Man, there's gonna be a lot of Gaians that are going to be PISSED at me for telling everyone that the one reliable feature of a Gaian is that you can't pin down their personality type because what they care about above all else (even slavery or lying) is BLENDING IN. You see a guy you can't figure out who spends all his time blending in and hiding his secrets? GAIAN! If you know to look for it, their obsessive desire for hiding is the one thing that gives them away! It's hilarious!

So yeah, cats. Cats love boxes that are just about their body size. And they love patches on the floor that just happen to hide their fur coats. And they instinctively hide their feces and urine, leaving no trace of themselves for anything to track them down and kill them. And they also manage to do all that with brains the size of a peanut. BEING NOT-EVIL with a brain the size of a peanut. Remarkable.

I could go on this way about this animal or that animal. If I could be arsed about it. I have a much better idea.

Nature As A Whole

When you think of Nature as a whole, what exactly do you think? If you're Werner Herzog then you think "Overwhelming and Collective Murder". I certainly think so. And I think any Good person will too. Not does, but will. There is a reason why "law of the jungle" is synonymous with Evil.

Incidentally, Werner Herzog is obviously autistic and the part-object layer of his brain is scrambled. This makes him egocentric but doesn't mean he's egotistical, and he isn't. Fucked up and Evil mean different things, although all Evil people ARE fucked up. It's rather like the difference between 'government' and 'American government'.

Hmm, I thought that was a digression but it turns out to be on point. Because COGNITION is what separates humans from animals. Lack of cognition is what makes it so psychopaths are just mindless animals that happened to master the trick of speech. It really shouldn't be a punishable offense to kill a psychopath anymore than killing a dog is punishable. But then again morons can't tell a psychopath when they're speaking to them, so it's just as well.

All the biologists that claim we're mere animals, that there's no clear and obvious feature that separates us from animals, that there's no obvious empirical test to distinguish us, that animals are "smarter than you think", that it's all just a giant continuum ... are Evil. They're not merely retarded, idiotic, moronic and stupid. Because it's one thing to cozy up to animals, it's another to lie, and it's still another to earnestly believe all humans are Evil.<=p>

And being Evil, THEY are animals and are projecting THEMSELVES unto US. and that's not even counting the ones that WANT to be animals, that WANT to give up consciousness! Or merely proselytize and speechify that YOU should. Of course, I am using 'us' in the exclusive sense because an awful lot of you retarded morons simply LUVVV nature. And really, that ought to be a test of how Evil or close to Evil a person is.

Werner Herzog loves the Jungle ... reluctantly, against his better judgement. I'd call that Neutral, neither Good nor Evil.

Where Greens Come From

It took me forever to figure out where Greens come from. It took meeting someone who had both personality types in himself. Because I never expected real human beings could be hybrids of two personality types. Though I should have known better just from continuity. And THEN finding a Mastermind, a high-Presence kind of Gaian who wasn't a Green at all. Here's what I wrote him.

GREEN PSYCHOLOGY

You don't seem to understand green psychology very well if you believe that locavores (who ARE greens) would fight other greens to stop mindless worship of their sun-god Ra.

The green ideology is a bastard child of three personality types. First is *your* personality type that worships Life. Second is the anarchist personality type that worships Freedom. And third is psychopaths who worship destruction.

The psychopaths (con men, shills, salesmen, lawyers, nomads, tribals, hackers, crackers, and it just goes on) have thoroughly infiltrated the anarchists because they're essentially Evil anarchists. And because anarchists' ever-shifting organizational structures doesn't provide them with the defense that rigid organizations obtain from the psychopaths' short attention spans.

(Rigid hierarchical organizations are thoroughly infiltrated by right-wing authoritarians, who are Evil authoritarians. This type of infiltration is called Corruption. As in, 'corruption of the law'. But I digress.)

So there's a lot of insane fucks like John Zerzan (who is a narcissist but that's close enough) who one way or another want the destruction of humanity and/or the ecosphere both. And these insane fucks have made their way into the Green movement.

The second group is the anarchists. These people HATE hierarchical organizations. Centralization, hierarchy? HATE. They would have no problem with small modular reactors but they HATE big nuclear power plants. And nuclear power plants being associated with government (either due to regulation or sovereign debt) just makes it worse.

The important part is that these people are ALL non-analytics thus their brains aren't intrinsically capable of logic. They're generally not interested in faking logic either. After all, sticking to logic would be constraining of their Freedom. You might even call it authoritarian. Though the important part is they don't natively do logic rather than that they don't want to.

What makes it all toxic is that they have low Presence. If they had high Presence, they would take responsibility for their neighbourhood or community or region or society. But they don't. They have LOW Presence. And by low I really mean zero or negative. And another word for Presence is Responsibility.

So here you have people who are totally irresponsible (low Presence), are infiltrated by psychopaths, HATE centralized power plants with a passion, aren't willing (or even capable) of thinking in abstract terms such as necessity or the long term. Are able but not willing to weigh people freezing to death versus their hatred of centralized power. Because they just don't have any sense of responsibility to their own universal principles on anything resembling a large scale.

Now the LOGICAL thing to do would be for them to buckle down and push for the dismantling of the power grid in favour of small nuclear power reactors. Which would eliminate the risk of widespread power failures from cascading overloads, coronal mass ejections, and ice storms. It would also cut electricity prices in half since the greater share (transmission & distribution) would be eliminated.

But they aren't logical. And they aren't smart either. They're very, very stupid. Nor as already stated are they at all responsible. Instead of responsibility what they have is some vague sense of obligation to a social role they play out. Like Kabuki theater. (This is zero Presence by the way. The passive in passive-aggressive. Though there's really two meanings of passive in passive-aggressive, but I digress.)

So instead of doing the smart thing, they've struck an alliance with people who (also zero Presence, also playing out a role, but this time caring for Life) magically think of radiation as death, as intrinsically inimical to Life. And who magically believe the sun-god Ra is the 'primordial source of life'. Even though that's untrue since there is no life on tectonically inactive planets but there is in geothermal vents. Father Sun and Mother Earth.

You worship Mother Earth, don't you? Personally I hate that fucking crazy bitch and would love nothing better than for the Earth to be irradiated. So long as civilization continues, I'm fine with that. But I digress.

Locavores? They're the same basic personality type. They're a toxic low-Presence mix of Life-worshipers (who obsess about EATING life for some reason, probably on the same basis as cannibals eating the hearts of their enemies to gain their courage) with Freedom worshipers (this time hating centralized transport, logistics and petroleum companies).

Why do you expect them to oppose each other when they are people with the exact same values acting in exactly the same insane ways, at the exact same level of 'tools'?

GREEN HISTORY

See, the pure authoritarians (idealistic cops and the like) struck an alliance with the corrupt authoritarians (fascists, nazis, engineers) to form capitalist society. The Evil authoritarians make up to 25% of the American population so they're a hefty chunk of the population. So for that reason the anarchists decided to form an alliance with the well let's call you Gaians. That alliance spawned an ideology, and that ideology is the Green ideology. Good people were shut out of the process as none of you want anything to do with any of us. Since we would rule over you like kings.

In the past, anarchists were crushed utterly, so they weren't a big enough faction for the Gaians to ever bother allying with. I think that's the reason why there was a Gaian-Authoritarian-Fascists pan-alliance. Or that's how it seems to have been in Nazi Germany where nature got very romanticized. I could be wrong on this. It could be intrinsic to fascism which is intrinsically reactionary (backwards-looking) and nature does lie in humanity's past, not its present or future. Hmm..

Anyways, the reason the political alchemy happened is because people whose core value is Life end up looking fairly anemic politically. Fairly unmotivated. And that's compared to *every* other personality types. Not motivated by Good, not motivated by Evil, not motivated by pyramid-building, not motivated by leveling pyramids. You're motivated by Life but Life is everywhere so it's not very motivating unless you start crying doomsday and Global Warming. (Which explains that by the way.) So by allying with some other personality type, you get to adopt their motivation.

And on the other side, the anarchists are just too damned small to matter from a purely mass democracy point of view. So they have an incentive to absorb Gaians. And they offered Gaians a better deal than the authoritarians did. More relevance. And far less inconvenient reality getting in the way of their fantasies.

HYPOTHESIS: THE GREAT POLITICAL REALIGNMENT OF 1950-1970

And this all resulted from the breakdown of the anarchists and the anarcho-communists. And I suppose communism in general. Because the anarchists and anarcho-communists used to be allied, and they used to be allied to the authoritarian communists too. But in anglo-american countries, these were all thoroughly crushed. Then 'divide and conquer' set in. I think there used to be an alliance between pure authoritarians and communist authoritarians too, but that broke down, and the pure authoritarians turned to the corrupt authoritarians. That may have played a role in the Gaians' rejection of the authoritarians.

And the timing works too. There was just enough time between WW2 and the 1970s for a generation to grow up. And that generation was raised in a political environment where communism was no longer acceptable at all.

Well, this is pretty interesting but speculative. I don't know history to the level of detail I know the human mind.

Nuclear Power Should Never Be A Popular Issue

You know, I'm not just well-read on nuclear issues, I'm also reasonably well-read on anti-nuclear activists.

So I can tell you that when anti-nuclear activists in Canada categorized the Canadian government's financing the construction of nuclear power plants in China as a multi-billion dollar "subsidy" instead of a LOAN to be paid back with interest ... that was entirely typical of anti-nuclear activists everywhere in the world.

How can that possibly be? Well, it's because the nuclear industry is one of a few major industry (eg, semiconductors), that is a genuinely modern industry. It could not possibly have existed in the past because no part of it is comprehensible to a non-analytic. EVERY part of it is HUGELY complex. Every ASPECT of it is hugely complex. There is nothing about it that is simple.

There is absolutely nothing about the nuclear industry that your typically mentally retarded zealot is even remotely capable of comprehending or understanding. Not one thing. And that is why everything which spews out of anti-nuclear advocates is a lie, a misdirection, or a misrepresentation of some kind. Without exception.

In fact, not even the 'iconic imagery' of nuclear power plants is accurate. Not even something as simple as that. Every journalist who wants to pass off a picture of a nuclear power plant looks for cooling towers. Only, coal plants have cooling towers too. Most power plants do. What identifies nuclear power plants are the containment buildings with their domes.

Non-analytics and non-experts in the field literally couldn't get a single thing right.

Did you know that the steel pipes in a nuclear power plant, the ones that transmit high pressure high temperature steam, aren't even steel? :D They're metal and they're an alloy, but they're not principally made out of iron. They're made out of nickel - hasteloy. Or the cheap ones are just internally lined with hasteloy but you can't exactly dismiss the lining as unimportant because it's what makes the pipes work. Even something that simple. And it's so across the board.

Nuclear power should NEVER be a popular issue because the vast majority of the population is totally incapable of understanding or comprehending any aspect or component of its operation. Nuclear power is one of those wondrous areas where human civilization has completely outstripped its pathetic magical-thinking forebears. It probably won't surprise you to find out that the French nuclear union is explicitly communist.

Come to think of it, that's WHY zealots hate nuclear power so much. Because literally no part of it is comprehensible to them. Because it's a monument to their idiocy.

Neurodiversity: Why Eco-Zealots Should All Be Killed

Eco-zealots talk a lot about "biodiversity" like it's something wonderful. All those wonderful diseases and parasites that kill human beings, yeah! Well, let's talk about neurodiversity for a moment.

Culture Is More Complex

There are fewer than 100,000 genes in the human genome. There are 800,000 words in the English language. There are a mere 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. There are over 100 billion neurons in the human brain, each with an average of 7000 synapses, for a total of 700 trillion synapses.

(You believed DNA coded for your personality? Well, it's clear from the evidence that isn't the case. For those rare people who have distinctive personalities, the personality came about as the result of random chance. For the vast majority who don't, their personality was injected into their brains by those around them.)

Oh but you're going to say that human genes recombine to form a vastly greater number of proteins? Funny that, but concepts recombine to form ideas and English words combine and recombine into English sentences. The proteins combine into organelles, cells, organs and bodies. The sentences combine into calculations, instructions, artifacts, industrial processes and economies.

(Concepts are not "memes" by the way and ideas aren't digital! So-called "memetics" has nothing intelligent or meaningful to say about ideas, culture or society, that wasn't said better earlier. In fact, the central premise of "memetics", that all ideas have intrinsic value to the brains that hold them, that the brain doesn't treat conceptualization and valuation independently let alone completely separately ... this premise is FALSE and a LIE!)

Culture Is More Rapid

Cultural evolution is vastly more rapid (and powerful!) than mere biological evolution. After all, biological evolution can't give rise to an entirely new species in a single generation. Cultural evolution has given rise to an entirely new society in a single generation! Not just once but repeatedly, over and over and over again.

Think of the de-Nazification of Germany, think of the Chinese Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, the rise of Marxist Communism, the French Revolution, Quebec's Quiet Revolution. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the Sexual Revolution, the computer revolution, the railroad age, the telecomm age, the information age, the rise of robotics, the rise of genomics!

Culture Is More Powerful

Now let's talk power for a minute. How many bacteria live out in open space? None, zero, zilch, nothing. And yet there is a thriving colony of satellites operating out in space right now. How many life forms tunnel through solid rock? None! And yet Tunnel Boring Machines routinely do, right now. How many life forms span a single kilometer in length? None! Not even Pando comes close! Yet transoceanic fiber optic cables routinely span thousands of kilometers!

How many species divert raging rivers? None! Yet we routinely build hydroelectric dams. How many years did it take all life on Earth to alter the composition of its atmosphere? Two billion. How many years did it take culture to do it? We still have a thousand years to go before the 10,000 mark is reached, and that's from the very genesis of culture, not even the birth of the Industrial Age.

How much mass has the biosphere? 600 billion tonnes of carbon after 3 to 4 billion years. And that is all it will EVER amount to. How much mass has the technosphere? 5 billion tonnes of steel and cement being added to it just last year. And we've barely even started! Culture levels mountains and drains seas, literally. Biology ... just fucking sits there like a cadaver, completely inanimate.

Culture Is Vastly More Valuable

Getting back to the point, it is clear to anyone that is not completely brainless and/or lost in mindless hatred for humanity, that a single human life is more precious than en entire species of cute furry little creatures. One starving street urchin in Rio de Janeiro is worth ... pandas. If it were a choice between that street kid's life and the extinction of a species, any species, I wouldn't hesitate to go for extinction. And I wouldn't stop to poll how other people FEEL, I would just fucking do it.

There are an estimated 9 million species on the Earth. So ALL of the Earth's biodiversity is worth little more than the human population of Papua New Guinea. And I fucking despise those infanticidal cannibalistic savages! Eco-zealots are complaining how humanity is causing mass extinctions? How thousands of species are dying every minute? Well it's a total lie, but even if it were true, I would only have this to say: GOOD!

You say that biodiversity is important to the survival of humanity? That "it's all about habitability"? That "sustainability" (stagnation) is enviable? LIES! Mono-cultured grains, orchards and plantations are fully capable of feeding humanity, which as per the proofs above is ALL that matters. And very soon, thanks to our technological evolution!, we won't even need those as we'll be eating vat meat or synthesized protein. Culture will make it so we won't need nature within a thousand years, whereas if it were left up to nature, we would all be extinct within the next hundred thousand years.

The human population of the Earth is 7 billion. Its worth, neglecting for the moment that some of those humans' lives are worth a billion times others', is completely unchanged by the extinction of homo sapiens as a biological species. If the entire human population suddenly became AIs and homo sapiens became extinct, the value lost by homo sapiens' extinction would be recouped after all of 6 seconds, during which 2 babies would be born and 3 people would die.

Eco-Zealots Are Worth Less Than Nothing

But as I said, not all human lives are equal in value. If eco-zealots believe that their own lives are worth LESS than a biological species' continued existence, I am quite willing to oblige them. In fact, I would go even further and say that they are worthless and all ought to die. After all, since an entire species' genome is numerically worth less than one hundred-thousandth of a single human brain, it follows that an eco-zealot's life (equal to a species' only) is worth only one hundred thousandth of an ordinary human life.

And that's not all! Because THEIR lives are inimical to the continued prosperity of the human species. because THEY want "nature" to thrive at the expense of human lives, it follows then that eco-zealots ought to be treated like any other human virus inimical to human life, and eradicated from the face of the Earth with extreme prejudice. Let me be blunt: every single last eco-zealots ought to be shot in the head and killed. Because the filthy hateful words spewing out of their mouths constitute hate crimes deserving of capital punishment!

So-called "environmentalists" and "climate researchers" are literally as valuable to humanity as HIV and should be treated the same way. With prophylactics and plenty of serious research aimed at creating a vaccine against them. Eradication wouldn't be amiss either.

Perfect Example Of Solar Zealots' Hype

In Gizmag,

It's hard to envisage that sort of system working effectively until you tweak the temperature variables and scale the whole thing up. Put this tower in a hot desert area, where the daytime surface temperature sits at around 40 degrees Celsius (104 F), and add in the greenhouse effect and you've got a temperature under your collector somewhere around 80-90 degrees (176-194 F).

Ahh, so THAT's why solar towers aren't built anywhere. Kind of a big disadvantage. And puts the scorcher on those stupid plans to have green greenhouses underneath. For free! Yeah right. Well, I always hated that stupid Desertec crap.

The amazing thing is that this paragraph above is exactly 1 paragraph and 1 photo distant from the following marketroid hype:

Because you want large tracts of hot, dry land for best results, you can build it on more or less useless land in the desert;

Far from consumers. Since when has this been an advantage?

It emits absolutely no pollution - the only emission is warm air at the top of the tower. In fact, because you're creating a greenhouse underneath, it actually turns out to be remarkably good for growing vegetation under there.

Yes that's right, they say that 80-90 degrees celsius is "remarkably good for growing vegetation under there". That's the Worshipers of the Sun God Ra for you, incapable of common sense or of comprehending 'logical contradiction'.

Oh that's right, apparently I made a mistake in assuming these would be EARTH vegetables underneath those solar towers. No, all along it was supposed to be Vulcan vegetables. I feel so stupid now.

Enviros Caused The Financial Collapse

One regulatory perspective is that environmentalism has played a much greater role than people think. It induced a deep skepticism about anything involving the manipulation of nature or material objects in the real world. The response to environmentalism was to prohibit scientists from experimenting with stuff and only allow them to do so with bits. So computer science and finance were legal, and what they have in common is that they involve the manipulation of bits rather than stuff. They both did well in those forty years, but all the other engineering disciplines were stymied. Electric engineering, civil engineering, aeronautical, nuclear, petroleum—these were all held back, and attracted fewer talented students at university as the years went on. When people wonder why all the rocket scientists went to work on Wall Street, well, they were no longer able to build rockets. It’s some combination of an ossified, Weberian bureaucracy and the increasingly hostile regulation of technology.

I just read this passage in an interesting article which you have to take with a grain of salt cause the guy's a dumbass right-libertarian who talks about blind spots but is remarkably blind himself.

BUT this part seems true, especially about scientists and engineers being brutally prohibited from playing with nuclear bombs. Think about what could have been done!

Nuclear cannons to launch huge amounts of supplies into orbit cheaply. A nuclear Orion starship. Nuclear bombs as demolition charges for mining / quarrying / canal digging.

Think about it: what kind of a dirty bastard would play on the stock market if they had even a slim chance of playing with LIVE NUKES! It's not even a contest, there is just no fucking way!

So it's clear, the enviros did wreck the world! They wrecked it by causing the financial collapse. And they caused THAT by causing the financialization of the world in the first place. Enviros hate industrial economies with a passion and they quite gleefully destroyed the First World's industrial economies "by accident".

Now if only the criminal justice system could see to it that causing widespread poverty (and thus mass death) was a crime so that it was okay to kill environmentalists in self-defense. But that will never happen because judges are middle upper class and they interpret laws (which being contradictory can be used to logically conclude anything) in a typically middle upper class way.

How Pandora Should End

Have I lowered myself to watch this amazingly stupid, inane, over-hyped piece of crap pandering to eco-zealots? Of course not. Yet I still feel I'm in a position to comment and offer insight on it based on the incredible amount of fanfiction I've read about it. I'm referring to two stories on FFNet Invasion of Pandora and Pandora's End.

And I say again, reading two stories about Pandora being incinerated is an incredible amount of devotion and benefit of the doubt I'm showing to this amazingly stupid movie. Though I'm willing to extend my show of devotion if someone will just write a story about Daleks showing up on Pandora screaming EXTERMINATE! and INCINERATE! Because let me tell you, that thought put a happy smile on my face last night as I went to sleep. It's definitely the kind of Happy Thought pure magic is made of.

What The Movie Is All About

Remember the civilians working on the Avatar project complaining about a fucking jarhead on their civilian, diplomatic project? And at the end of the day, instead of the jarhead negotiating a peace treaty with the aliens like he was supposed to do, what does he do? He betrays his entire species and dooms them to poverty and death.

Because battle and mass murder & death are "cool". Because humans ought to all die and only Amerindian anti-progress enviro-freaks ought to live. And treason is a-okay so long as it's for those causes. So yeah, I only realized yesterday the civilians were right: putting a fucking jarhead in charge doomed their species.

The real lesson of the movie isn't that eco-zealots are right. No, it's that jarheads are never to be trusted because they're all violent traitorous psychopaths concerned only with looking good. A statement that is definitely true of the air force by the way. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it characterizes the macho marines, the snobbish navy, or the ... well whatever the fuck the army is.

How To Improve The Movie

To improve Avatar, you first have to realize its most basic flaw. And that flaw isn't that it's pandering to eco-zealot gaia-fascist druid-fundamentalist nutbars. Nor is it that this stupid planet has an impossible biology. Nor is it even that it's blatantly anti-progress and anti-human. No, its most basic flaw is the whole ridiculous notion of a "war" between an interstellar civilization and a planet-bound species of no-tech primitives.

That's what the whole stupid movie is about, isn't it? The "war". And it is utterly fucking impossible because this is what a space-based civilization would actually do:

• mine the local asteroid belt (there is always one) to construct giant mirrors with a surface area totaling (1000 km)^2. ((1 micron) * ((1000 km)^2) * (7.85 tonnes)) per (cubic meter) in tonnes = 7 850 000 tonnes. It's basically a small solar sail and you won't need to mine more than a single asteroid.
• tow then set up the giant mirrors in orbit of the habitable planet.
• flash fry a square landing site, turning it into nice smooth glass by carefully redirecting a beam of sunlight of temperature 10^2 * 300 Kelvin = 30,000 kelvin onto a (100 km)^2 square area for 1 second.
• OR slow broil a square landing site by redirecting a beam of sunlight of temperature 1 * 300 kelvin onto a (1000 km)^2 square area for 1 day (so that at midnight the temperature consistently reaches above 100 celsius on the ground, all the water boils off, the jungle gets dessicated then it spontaneously ignites in a beautiful firestorm that sterilizes and breaks down all the biochemical poisons in the atmosphere).
• continue carving the landscape at will, pulverizing mountains and creating new riverbeds.
• wait a couple days for it all to cool off.
• land near the largest lake in the zone of death umm safety.
• start mining operations at the landing site.
• make contact with the natives and inform them of what you want by pointing to some mineral ores. (The advantage of the slow broil approach is now obvious, especially performed at night when it will be more spectacular. The disadvantage of slow broil is that it delivers thousands of times more energy to the landing site than flash fry.)
• incinerate whatever (100 km)^2 square on the grid that the natives attack from. One square for every casualty you incur.

Bingo, within a fortnight, antagonizing you will become a capital crime among the natives.

You know, I think my plan might be overkill by about a factor of 100. Which just goes to show how fucking easy it is to kill primitive tribal morons when you're in space!!

So yeah, if you get rid of that entire amazingly stupid "war" and let the Navi be incinerated then that would improve the movie tremendously. Or you could make a sequel based on that. You know, Earth saying "alright you scum suckers, so you want to get SERIOUS?"

If you're going to create a movie lionizing the harmony of overwhelming and collective murder that is "nature" then it might as well be the collective murder of uncivilized backwards tribal primitives.

The Hand of God

Oh yeah, that massive shaft of sunlight could just as easily have been redirected to the polar regions, melting the ice sheets and turning a continent like Antarctica inhabitable. A square 1000 km on a side is a fair amount of living space you know.

And if it were directed to the oceans, well you know the scene in Star Trek IV: the Voyage Home where the space-whale probe starts boiling the oceans in order to sterilize the Earth? THAT is what it would look like.

I think there is a good reason why the hand of god in Populous 3 is represented by a shaft of sunlight.

On Self-Righteous Egotistical Assholes

Eco-zealots like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are neither people of principle nor altruistic, and they are certainly NOT moral.

They are immoral self-interested selfish egotistical assholes who care only about themselves. When they claim to want to "save the planet" at any cost, what they mean is that they don't care about the cost FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

They don't care about the cost imposed on poor people in China and other developing countries. They don't care whether those people will freeze to death for lack of electricity from power plants or wood fuel from "saved" forests.

They don't care whether those people will starve to death from unaffordable "organic" agriculture. These self-righteous egotistical assholes don't care that "biodiesel" and corn ethanol means BURNING FOOD IN AUTOMOBILES. Food that could feed poor people in the third world.

They don't care that natural gas is expensive, way too expensive for poor people to afford, and that nuclear power is cheap. Because they don't care whether or not poor people get to light their shacks at night. Poor people just don't matter to them.

Nor do they care that coal miners die in accidents whereas uranium miners don't. After all, coal miners are poor people, why should they give a fuck about them? And they certainly don't care that wind turbines emit infrasounds that make people who live near them stressed out and unable to sleep. After all, who cares what happens to some dirt farmers and rednecks?

They don't care that ambient energy, so-called "renewable" energy (what the fuck is that word even supposed to mean that doesn't apply to uranium fission? because it sounds like it violates the second law of thermodynamics, honestly!) costs 3 to 5 times as much as nuclear power. After all, electricity isn't something for poor people, is it?!

Nor do they care that solar panel buyers are going to get gypped because the panels will lose half their efficacy within 10 years and the wind turbines will be severely damaged because wind refuses to turn them at a constant speed or to spin them up and spin them down slowly and gently enough. Turbine makers like GE just love wind farms, gee I wonder why! They certainly don't care that these sources of power are expensive and unusable and will never pay for themselves.

Eco-zealots, their industrial enablers and their brainwashed foot-soldiers don't care that government and ratepayers are subsidizing them and they are stealing money from taxpayers and ratepayers! After all, isn't it their right to be subsidized? Aren't they entitled? Aren't they self-righteous enough?!

Eco-zealots like the Rocky Mountain Institute don't care that they're cutting down forests and burning massive amounts of petrol to commute between their "eco-preserves". Vastly more than New Yorkers who live in concrete jungles with miniscule footprints (per person) and take the subway. After all, they're rich and cities are for poor people! You shouldn't judge the rich people who are few by the same standards as the poor people who are many! 

Eco-zealots don't care about the truth. They don't care that the Climate Research Institute has been systematically corrupting data and making bogus analyses ever since it was created. They're saving the planet after all! They don't care that polar bears have survived through numerous periods when the Arctic ice disappeared entirely. They don't care that only one or two populations of polar bears has been in decline while two dozen more were increasing in number at the same time. Aren't polar bears cute enough for you?! Well what about penguins then?! They're SAVING THE PLANET here. Whatever the fuck that means. Isn't it RIGHT to lie for The Cause?!

Eco-zealots care only about themselves, and since all these "environmental" movements are funded and controlled by rich people, the enemy is always poor people. As far as they're concerned, poor people should just die. And their own activities can never, ever be harmful to the "environment" (whatever the fuck that is) because hey they're rich! As far as they're concerned, an attack on the "environment" matters only if it 1) makes poor people wealthier, or 2) threatens their own survival.

You can tell from "global warming" hysteria. Nuclear power plants are deemed by the elite, rich, corporate, hierarchical media to not be a good way to solve that problem (note that I consider the hysteria a real problem, not any hypothetical global warming that would just result in the Sahara desert being flooded by torrential rains, as actually happened in the past), but natural gas and wind turbines, both of which just "happen" to be expensive and unaffordable to poor people, those are great! After all, "expensive" just means rich people get more money. What's bad about that?!

It's only in the case of the delusional whack jobs who take the "global warming" crap seriously, who think it will threaten their own personal survival, yeah those whack jobs are egotistical enough to say that maybe, just maybe, nuclear power can be "part of the solution". Because when it was just poor people in South Korea and China who might benefit from nuclear power, they didn't give a flying fuck. Back then it was all pissing and moaning about how horrible nuclear power was because it gave off magical J-rays that magically corrupted people. But when it's their own personal survival they think is at stake then hey, HEY!, let's not be hasty!!

The whole concept of "sustainability" is at odds with scalability. Scalability means "how do we make sure all 6+ billion people on this planet can use this? So-called "sustainability" means "how do we make sure the status quo of rich people using this technology can be maintained forever"? These are anti-thetical concerns. Worse than that, so-called "sustainability" is an anti-human concern. Because "human" includes the 6 billion people who AREN'T rich and can't afford the so-called "sustainable" technologies of organic food and electricity from weak ambient power sources.

So-called "civil society" is just a means for landed aristocrats like William "Bill" Gates III to tell other people what to do. To order them about. To tell them to starve and die and above all STAY POOR. Is it any wonder that China and Russia are both telling the world "homey don't play that". And China more than Russia because it's actively industrializing and wants to make poor people wealthy.

The refusal of Canada and the USA to build hydroelectric dams to create more arable land and flood the world with cheap food has fuck-all to do with any "environmental" concerns. And it sure has fuck-all to do with any hypothetical "biodiversity" or "biodensity" of rivers which ecological biology isn't scientific enough to measure! It has everything to do with power. Because helping poor people is "bad" and technologies that are cheap are "bad". There is a class war going on you witless peons. There always has been. It has never stopped.

CLASS WAR. It's not some dirty word. And if it's not "politically correct", I don't give a fuck. Inner city American blacks are niggers and I'll call them that. Or black to their face, after all I don't want some anti-education anti-intellectual thug pounding on me. American blacks certainly aren't "African" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. So when the rich are waging class war on the poor (ie, always) then I'll call it that too. Damned idiots who think that ceasing to call a thing what it is will make it go away. Are you people pre-adolescent children?! It. Is. Class. Warfare!

Get it? Class warfare! Say it motherfucker, fucking SAY IT!

That's what "environmentalism" is all about. It's about gullible brainwashed morons like you being fucked up the ass by self-righteous egotistical assholes and you begging for more!

Most Great Science Is Fraudulent, And Nearly All Scientists Are Frauds

Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram's Authority Experiment

A lot of hay is made over the Stanford Prison and Milgram Authority Experiments especially when someone wants to conclude that people are naturally submissive and sadistic. The truth is they're fraudulent and junk science. The truth is that Asch's Conformity Experiments perfectly explains the results of those other experiments as junk science.

How? Easy. The most basic requirement of any psychological experiment is that the subjects of the experiment are willing to take part in a psychology experiment. They are all, without exception, willing to obey the experimenter. Now that doesn't sound like a proper randomized sample of a population, does it?

At least, it doesn't if you know there exist iconoclasts in the general population, breakers of sacred idols, murderers of sacred cows, people who will dissent for the sake of dissent, people who will instinctively refuse to obey just because you made it an order. There are such people and I know it very well, being one of them. But the douchebags who call themselves "scientists" and "academics" and "psychologists" and "experts in the human mind" seem oblivious to this.

(For the record, I consider taking part in a psychology experiment [playing the part of a monkey for the edification of an ignorant jackass] about as distastefully intimate as prostitution. And since I have a high-class mind I would want to be paid in a manner similar to a high class escort. I think about 1000$ an hour would ensure my willingness to go along voluntarily. Since this much money would corrupt the results, the only way an experimenter could get an honest response out of me would be without my knowledge.)

But why should a few loners, dissenters, disgruntled radicals and revolutionaries mean anything about the Stanford Prison experiment? Doesn't the majority hold sway? Doesn't what happened in those experiments prove there is a natural sadistic desire in "human nature"? NO! Because the Asch conformity experiment proves that it takes only one, ONLY ONE person to utterly shatter a consensus. Once you have that one person, that one iconoclast in the group, the haze of conformity lifts as everyone suddenly finds they are permitted to think for themselves.

All the Stanford Prison Experiment tells us is that when iconoclasts are weeded out of a population, what's left is going to do what the experimenter expects them to do, what he tells them to do. Even though the experimenter will claim he was "surprised" by their viciousness and he "never expected" the situation to devolve so quickly. And all Milgram's experiment tells us is that after 20 years of brainwashing in obedience training, people are going to have a difficult time disobeying.

Six Degrees Of Separation

Another famous experiment is the so-called "six degrees of separation" where an experimenter sent out a bunch of letters, most of which never made it to their destinations, and then "concluded" based on his few positive results that everyone is connected in a graph of degree 6. Of course this is fraudulent since the data never supported the conclusion.

And very shortly after it was discovered that people are separated by class barriers so that it's all but impossible to find links from lower to upper class. Or in the USA, between the white and the nigger class. Blacks aren't a class, but niggers are, even though you aren't allowed to say it because of so-called "political correctness" (more lying and fraud).

Physics too

A lot of pretentious assholes are going to claim that things are entirely different in physics. But that's false. The problem with all these experiments is that they assume their own conclusions. Which is of course what Thomas Kuhn calls "normal science" as opposed to revolutionary science.

You see, physicists do it too! You can see this mindless unthinking unquestioning lying crap happening with the so-called Copenhagen consensus wrought by force of authority of Niels Bohr (may he rot in hell). You can also see it in Bell's theorem which "proved" its own vitalistic assumption by concluding that if you start by preparing a number of "identical" systems you will then get very strange results.

Vitalism is alive and well in modern quantum physics where it relies on the notion that experimenters are outside of the physical universe, outside of the phenomena they're studying.

Millikan

And then there's always the good old Millikan's oil drop experiment which was blatant and simple fraud of the most obvious kind. You see, the experiment couldn't be replicated using modern equipment. You just can't calculate the charge of the electron with any accuracy using the kind of setup Millikan used. What you can do however is assume your data fits the predicted result and eliminate any "outliers". It gets pretty fucking embarrassing though if the predicted result turns out to have been wrong, if you "saw" something that could never exist.

Of course, Millikan was such a famous scientist, had so much authority, that he must obviously have been correct, rather than a simple but highly embarrassing fraud. So over the course of a few decades, the "experimental results" of the charge of the electron steadily crept towards their modern (real) values as experiments got steadily more "accurate". So it wasn't only Millikan that was a fraud, it was also every physicist after him. Frauds, every single last fucking one of them.

Sociology

And fraud is still alive and well in science today what with the sociology experiment published in First Monday where the metric used implicitly included ostracism. Of course, the dumbfuck experimenters (all half dozen of them!) none of them want to admit that their experiment was worthless shit that measured the (patently obvious!) ostracism of generalists by specialists in the sciences. Of course not, since it was their thesis that generalists are less "productive", since you see, they don't like generalists. How stupider does it get than a bunch of prejudiced assholes measuring exactly how much an obviously prejudiced against group is actually prejudiced against? And that's stupid even without the prejudiced assholes then concluding the prejudiced against group is really inferior.

Psychology vs Anthropology

And let's not go into Lloyd deMause whose theory of the history of childrearing casually assumes that all anthropologists everywhere are frauds of the most vicious lying kind. Every single last fucking one of them, excepting only those anthropologists who have had psychological training and thus are really amateur psychologists. The most damning part of deMause's theory is that I believe him. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that the whole field of anthropology is ruled by quacks and charlatans who blithely and eagerly fake their data so as to maximize sympathy for the murderous infanticidal "noble" savages they think are precious.

After all, to anthropologists, primitiveness, ignorance, stupidity and rampant disease aren't to be eradicated. They are to be "studied" which is really a codeword for honest admiration. Anthropologists are anti-human eco-freaks, exactly as twisted up inside as the zealots that want to destroy all electric power plants so that humans freeze to death. All to save their precious fucking forests. Wishful thinking that since if power plants shut down, humans would NOT freeze to death, they would burn down every last fucking forest for wood fuel instead.

The fact these morons can't even realize that their "plans" are antithetical to their own goals, that even coal power plants are better than so-called "biomass", that SCALABILITY is more important than "sustainability" in a world with 6 to 9 billion humans who WILL survive no matter what, that is damning. Eco-zealots are fucking retarded moronic fuckers who think it's perfectly alright if an asteroid causes a mass extinction that happens to end the human species for lack of advanced space technology. After all, mass extinctions are "natural" and enhance "biodiversity" and are the "revenge of Gaia, the Mother-Earth".

And anthropologists take after them. They sound like them, they talk like them, they think like them. And that's damning to all anthropology.

What It All Means

The fact that an abomination like anthropology exists and is honoured by scientists and academics alike rather than derided and scorned as the useless fraudulent lit crit shit it really is .... that's damning to all science.

After all, the Sokal hoax proved to everyone that scientists are perfectly capable of scorning and deriding people who undermine the authority of the exact sciences. When lit crit assholes undermined exact scientists' authority, the latter counter-attacked.

What does it say then that those same exact scientists can't be moved, can't be bothered, when a field like anthropology "merely" spits on the truth? It says scientists only care about their authority, and will piss on the truth themselves if that's what it takes to remain in power.

It says Scientists. Are. Frauds.

Every last fucking one of them.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then anthropology wouldn't be permitted to exist.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then they would take an interest in psychology and bully and egg the proto-science until it developed formal, rigorous theories of the mind, until it became a REAL science.

Because if scientists weren't frauds then they wouldn't hush up their embarrassments and their failures, they would encourage the questioning of mainstream theories for its own sake and hold high every slightest misstep and stumble done by an eminent scientist as proof that you can't follow authority figures blindly.

But they don't do any of those things. Because they're only interested in their own power. And nothing else matters.

Orwellism isn't limited to the USA

So-called "third way" politics in the last decade meant right-wingers using left-wing rhetoric. It was loathesome crap. Fortunately it was self-limiting since "third way" politicians couldn't get away with their lies when their subjects were suffering for it.

More worrying is so-called "civil society" which refers to NGOs paid for and ruled by aristocrats. (They follow the corporate model with shareholders after all, not the cooperative model at all.) What "civil society" means as an ideal is the opposition to responsible government (whether democratic or dictatorial) in favour of rule by aristocrats ... through the back door.

The development of "civil society" is a scourge on any country that has it. China most recently has been beset by nutballs promoting weak ambient power sources (so-called "renewables"). South Korea has been beset by anti-nuclear nutballs.

While we're on the topic, so-called "renewables" are another Orwellism since there is nothing particularly renewable about power derived from thermonuclear reactions in the Sun that doesn't apply to fission power derived from burning already radioactive remnants of supernovae.

Remnants that can be found in plenty both in the granite that makes up all mountains and in the seawater of every ocean. Cheaply enough to be economical too, if we had to go that route. And since the Sun will become unusable in a mere 5 billion years whereas thorium should still be usable for ten billion of years, fission is actually MORE "renewable".

This scourge of "civil society" has brought about calamity in nation after nation. Witness the so-called "environmental" (another Orwellism! they're really the anti-industrial / anti-human movement) NGOs in Germany which flourished so well under Nazism.

Thanks to its "environmental" movement, Germany has a psychotic national energy policy, one totally divorced from physical reality. Billions of euros are being forcibly taken from ratepayers and taxpayers in order to "pay" for "investments" that produce neither electricity nor reduce CO2 emissions.

And it's not just money going down the drain or Germans being impoverished thanks to the ideals of fascists. It's also Germany's nuclear know-how that's stagnating and being dismantled instead of flourishing and sharpening. It's also tens of thousands of Europeans having their lives shortened thanks to German coal plants.

The so-called "environmental" NGOs only reveal themselves as the bought and paid for aristocratic, anti-human scum they are when they fail to protest coal plants (in the USA) or natural gas plants (in Germany) despite both of these putting out copious greenhouse gases.

No, Orwellism isn't limited to the USA. It's found all over the world. Because of course there are magical-thinking idiots willing and eager to buy that double-speaking tripe the world over.

Orwellism is also found in every subject. History for example. How many people know Sparta as the loathsome North Korea-esque cesspit of oppression it really was? How many people know Plato and Socrates as the lying anti-democratic pieces of shit they really were?

Apparently George Lucas was right, people are not only magical-thinking idiots, they're the kinds of idiots that desperately want to be ruled by kings. And you know what? I sincerely desire they get exactly what they wish for. Because I want to see their faces when they're being lashed and I get to tell them 'I told you so you dumb motherfucker'.

Reply to a Tree Hugger's Change of Heart on Nuclear

Here is my reply to Geoff Russel's 'Rethinking Nuclear'. For obvious reasons, it will disappear from Geoff's site.

In order to reduce the USA's CO2 emissions by just half, carbon has to be completely eliminated from the power generation industry. Carbon can be eliminated from power generation quite easily by adopting nuclear power plants. It can be eliminated at a massive profit, with the side-effect of freeing up most rail transport capacity from coal transport, thus making railways a viable passenger transport again. It cannot ever be eliminated by any combination of solar, wind or other ambient (what you mistakenly call "renewables") power. The sun doesn't shine at midnight and the wind never blows throughout the night.

These are simple and obvious facts. Renewables are a very bad technology if your goal is to decarbonize the power industry. You claim to have that goal. And if you do not then you are an idiot. But having that goal, your proposed solution is an epic failure. Thus you are an idiot.

It's worse than that. You seriously propose a politically non-viable perfect solution (IFR) against a semi-viable good solution (Gen III). That makes you an idiot squared.

It's even worse than that. For decades, you have been mindlessly railing about the "risks" of nuclear power out of a puerile hatred of big business. In all of that time you didn't give a flying fuck about the millions dying from poverty, the lack of electrification, and the lack of industrialization. Fuck no, you loved that they were dying.

You said it yourself, the only thing that changed the game for you is another hysterical paranoid threat to your personal survival, the threat of global warming. Because nobody (big business) and nothing (nuclear) can ever be allowed to ameliorate and better the world unless YOUR fat white elite ass benefits. You are a despicable scumbag and an idiot to the third power.

And that's not even the worst part of it. Because you see, the worst part of it is that you are a lying fucking HYPOCRITE. You go out of your way to accuse and condemn Howard & Zwitkowski of craven selfish cronyism. Craven selfish cronyism which you engage in yourself!

You are an abomination to all that is good. You are a blight on this planet and in this universe. You are an offense to morality. You are a stain on moral humanity.

My most serious proposal for how you personally can better the world is this. Shoot yourself. Put a bullet through your head and spare the world of the misery of having you in it. That is how you can best help save the world. By removing your miserable awe-inspiring idiocy from it.

I'm reproducing this comment on my blog since idiots, lacking the capacity for a rational response, do idiotic things when the offensive truth is pointed out. But hey, the notion of the unvarnished truth being offensive is exceedingly offensive to me.

Natural vs Artificial

From a lovely little discussion I just had.

There is a fundamental magical difference between anything artificial and anything natural.

In fact, this magical difference is even enshrined in physics in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The laws of physics are deterministic until human beings get involved at which point they become magically non-deterministic (whatever that means).

It is also enshrined in the Lockean doctrine of "natural rights" which the USA believes in. Negative rights are natural (don't require human action) and positive rights are artificial (do require human action). In the communist doctrine of human rights, there is no distinction.

This magical difference is why watching someone drown to death is okay but drowning them yourself is wrong, as every red-blooded American is taught to believe since true freedom is the freedom to drown.

This magical difference is why 4 to 8 milliSieverts per year of natural radiation is perfectly acceptable. But 0.05 milliSieverts per year due to standing outside of a nuclear plant 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year is totally unacceptable.

So now you know the reason why the actions of quadrillions of natural cosmic rays is unimportant compared to a few dozen artificial beams in the LHC. Obviously the latter are much more threatening to us in magic-magic land.

So if a black hole 'just happens', its okay, but if we make it ourselves: no way!

If it just happens then it's nature's revenge or proof of the sinfulness of humans.

Nature is Mother and God is Father, you know. And they LOVE us even as they beat us. In fact, that's WHY they beat us. Because we deserve it!

Magical thinkers "reason" using magic because they're incapable of using logic. In fact, they're incapable of grasping any abstract concept at all.

Hence why they have to recycle the few concepts they do have. Which invariably turn out not to be abstract like "mortality risk" but rather concrete anthropomorphizations like "mother won't be pleased".

Mother won't be pleased with us making black holes on our own. In fact, mother won't be pleased with us doing anything, being independent like and saying what a murderous fucking bitch she is.

Buy Slow, Not Organic!

One of the arguments pushed by organics people is that organic foods taste better. This is false and it neatly demonstrates their magical thinking. There are actually several important dimensions to food:

1. whole foods rather than processed foods
2. varied vs bland breeds
3. local vs mass agriculture
4. organic vs chemical agriculture
5. PETA vs torture meat

Now, in case you didn't know, torture meat tastes better and PETA kills animals. So that's one argument against treating animals "humanely".

The other thing is that 'varied + local food' is called Slow Food. It's the biggest food movement there is, possibly bigger than organic. And unlike organic, it actually makes a taste difference. And the reason is very simple. If you buy locally then the fruits and vegetables are picked when they are riper. That makes them taste better.

Now, it happens that organic farms tend to be small. So if you buy organic food then you're very likely to get slow food. And that will make a taste difference. The important point is that this is a historical accident which is being reversed as giant mega-corporations buy into the organic label. So no, organic foods do not taste better. If you buy organic from a giant mega-corporation, and there are a few around now, the taste difference should go away.

Another example is organic milk which may have a longer expiration date because it is filtered to higher standards. Again, just an accident that has nothing to do with its being organic.

Being unable to make important abstract distinctions (eg, local vs organic) is a hallmark of the magical thinker.

"Green" as Vampirism

A general rule is that I will tolerate any one-time hit on nature and I am in favour of technologies that create new ecologies. But I am strongly opposed to any technology that demands continuous and ongoing consumption of nature to create value.

So I am strongly in favour of deep sea mining which may destroy "fragile ecosystems" of "unique species". These mining operations will put valuable minerals into the economy which will be recycled again and again and again while the affected ecosystems will recover. And I am strongly in favour of bioremediation using mycellia, living machines, urban gardens and green roofs. In contrast, I am strongly opposed to all biofuels, biomass and solar power.

The assumption that underlies this is that nature is different from us. It should be enjoyed at a distance. We shouldn't cover ourselves in nature or ingest it for the sake of ingesting it. Magical thinkers, eco-zealots, don't grasp the concept that nature is different from us and that by consuming it we are destroying it and not "becoming a part of it".

And this eco-vampirism of the "greens" shows up all over the place. It shows up in the greens' love of solar power and their desire to put solar panels on every rooftop. They are willfully blind to the fact they would be displacing green roofs and/or the opportunity for such green roofs. It shows up in their hatred of cities despite their having far lower ecological footprints than "eco"-housing built from "renewable" resources out in the middle of a forest.

It shows up in biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol) and biomass when they seek to consume nature to put it into the gas tank. It shows up in their enthusiasm for thermal depolymerization of manure and agricultural "waste". Because of course it's preferable to consume fertilizer than to give it away for urban gardens, compost heaps and living machines.

It's part of a general trend among "greens" that denies any standing for nature separate from humans. Either humans must consume nature or, in the case of the primitivists, humans must be consumed by nature. This kind of narrow-mindedness is actually broader than the "greens" since it shows up around civil engineers considering water-use issues.

For instance, one of the techniques used to "save water" is to line canals to "reduce water losses" This is good, right? Not so. Because by lining canals you reduce aquifer replenishment. It's not as if freshwater can be lost out on a high plain. Molecules of H2O aren't going to disappear or teleport themselves to the ocean.

In general, there's no such thing as "waste" when the environment is capable of making use of the resource. The environment can't use lead so it's a waste, it can use water so it's not a waste. It can use manure therefore ... it isn't a waste. At best it is being misused. And actually, since lead is used in industry, it too cannot be considered a waste. It can only be a waste if it is removed from the economy. In other words, labelling it a waste makes it a waste.

But even if eco-vampirism isn't restricted to "greens" it is particularly galling to find it among these hypocrites who so love to uphold their "closeness to nature" as a standard even as they are consuming it. Putting up solar panels doesn't make anyone "closer to nature" by the magical Law of Similarity. And living in a concrete jungle doesn't make one's lifestyle "unsustainable". On the contrary, using less of the same resources which the biosphere uses (land, water, sunlight) by relying more on the resources it doesn't use (copper, iron, uranium) makes one more sustainable.

The basic difference between greens and rationalists is the rationalists don't need to consume, or become, nature in order to appreciate it. They can enjoy it at a distance, marvelling at its presence. Nor do they need to put it to any utilitarian purpose. But best of all, rationalists are not scarcity-minded individuals. There is plenty of energy around, nuclear energy, so we hardly need to exploit nature to get it.

Since greens are magical thinkers they do not grasp many logical connections. Such as that by more efficiently exploiting nature, they impose enormous costs on the biosphere. I do grasp it and that's why I'm against biomass and in favour of nuclear power. Because nuclear power does not displace nature and so does not compete against it. Because nuclear power stands apart from nature it also doesn't touch nature.

And that is why "tree-hugger" is the worst possible epithet for an environmentalist. A tree-hugger's compulsion to hug nature to himself is so strong he willingly crushes it. Now if only someone would pull a gun on them and yell "Sir, put your hands on top of your head and step away from that ecosystem!"

Organics, or Why Magical Thinkers Should Be Hated, part IV

Here are the advantages of organic agricultural practices:

1. more minerals in vegetables
2. no antibiotics abuse in livestock
3. much higher biodiversity in farm fields
4. no dying farm workers
5. lower water use and topsoil depletion, less desertification
6. lower expenditures for farmers leading to more reliable profits

The above are facts. And yet these are the half-baked "arguments" which miserable "organic" idiots keep dragging out:

1. taste better (this is largely the result of processing, breeding, and self-delusion)
2. use land more efficiently (this one isn't trotted out so often anymore since it has been largely disproved)
3. save animal welfare (screw animals, what about poor people?!)
4. less toxic than pesticide-laden food (based on what evidence?)

Organic people are the kind of utter fucking scumbags who care more about some cow or pig's welfare than an immigrant farm worker dying of pesticide poisoning.

Reply To People Who've Put Up Solar Panels

So you've put up a bunch of solar panels for 20,000 USD out of pocket, and another 20,000 in government subsidies, and you'll get free electricity for 20 years? Think you got a good deal? Think again. Wouldn't you prefer something reliable that met ALL of your electric needs? Something that worked everywhere on Earth? Something that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg?

You could start a nuclear-consumers' coop. Get together with a million people in your area and build your own nuclear power plant. It would only cost you about 5,000 per person for 2 kilowatts each. This is much, MUCH cheaper than solar panels for equivalent capacity. And it would last a solid 60 years, not 20-30 years.

Because if you live in the USA then you can actually do that. The NRC has several nuclear power plant designs with blanket approval. You need a site license but once you have that, you just build the power plant as designed and run. There's a rogue power company that's willing to build and operate a power plant wherever in the country you want one. They've already considered a nuclear power plant in Idaho so they'd be willing to do it. So you'd just partner with them though you might have to partner with your local utility too. But if your State allows you to specify where your power comes from ....

One problem would be getting the heavy forgings. There's only 8 forges in the world that can cast ingots in the 40 tonne category. You'd need to order (dozens) from one of them. They require a deposit so pretty much as soon as you order your nuclear power plant, long before the parts arrive, 80% of its cost is locked in. You'd also have to manage the permit approval process since it takes a 30-50 million or so just to apply.

The big advantage you have is that if a million people are willing to put up 5,000 each then your cost of money is rock bottom. Even if you give them 5% on their money, that's still rock bottom. Your disadvantage is that you'd need to organize all of this. Your really big advantage is that once it was organized, it would be impossible to kill. Power generation projects by private generators meet a LOT of resistance. With publically-owned utilities, a lot less. With a community owned utility? It'd be a dream come true.

Now let's talk about money. The AP1000, that's one of the designs approved by the NRC, would cost 1000-1400 USD per MW. For 1 million people each with 2 kW that's 2 GW so we're talking two plants for 2000-2800. Construction and financing are 58% of the costs of an AP1000 so at 5000 per person you've covered construction, financing, fuel, maintenance, operation for 60 years and decommissioning at the end of it all.

It's possible, not likely but possible, that you run into political resistance. If you do then you'll want to take advantage of the deal in the Nuclear Programme 2010 which covers part of construction cost overruns. Which would be minimal since those are generally due to delays and the increased cost of financing, which you don't worry about because you've got cheap money. It's also likely you'd get a discount on the 2000-2800 since hey cheap money again. And if you take advantage the the NP2010 then you get some spare change from Congress for your trouble during the first 8 years of operation. A few tens of million each year for 8 years, not a lot of money. If the NP2010 is used up before you get your chance though that's actually even better since other generators will have taken the early risks before you.

And of course, there's always a bailout option. The AREVA consortium ordered their heavy forgings before they had approval even for their nuclear reactor design. Because they knew that if worse came to worse, they could always reuse those forgings in Flammanville, France where another nuclear power plant is going up. They got to cut time at no risk. With a standard design, it's entirely possible you could buy yourself an insurance (a guarantee of a buyer) in case things don't work out.

Doable? Definitely. You just need to get up the gumption to actually do it. Free electric generation for 60 years. Think about it.

Environmentalists vs Animal Lovers

Recently there has been a big brouhaha made over the death of the host of The Crocodile Hunter show. Now I find that kind of public weeping extremely distasteful at best. I do not find it "sad" when a public figure dies. I have no personal allegiance to Noam Chomsky as a person anymore than I did to Jane Jacobs. Their works are useful to many, including me personally, but their deaths should be left to their families and friends to mourn, not strangers.

I'm also against everything Steve Irwin did in life and everything he represents. Like most people today I'm concerned over the environment but that doesn't extend to being an animal lover. On the contrary, I am very much opposed to the entire "animal rights" movement. I don't anthropomorphize animals or supplant a Disneyfied version for what animals really are. Wild animals are dangerous and unpredictable and it is neither respectful nor responsible to pretend they are otherwise.

With few exceptions (parrots, crows, primates and cetaceans come to mind) animals don't think and they don't learn. A crocodile acts based on instincts, not by weighing options using symbolic reasoning (thinking). It doesn't matter if you've been feeding it for years, it will just as cheerfully eat your baby as the steaks that are its usual fare. At one time, Steve Irwin fed a crocodile with his baby underneath his arm on camera. It was criminally negligent of him to endanger his own child and in a Just society some judge or social worker would have intervened.

Irwin conveyed a dangerous and suicidal attitude to millions as an ideal to be emulated. Regardless of his intentions, the effect of his acts is to endanger many others. This is criminal. And he did this in order to personally profit from it, which is despicable.

But let's get into animal rights. You want to know how much I'm not an animal lover? Well, the condors of California were on their way to extinction anyways, so why not just let them die already? As for the cutesey wuvwey pandas? I vote we kill them to prove a point about whole-habitat conservation and the greater importance of lower life-forms in ecosystems. Environmentalism is about self-preservation, not about warm fuzzy feelings for anime pandas.

Ecology has more to do with the bacteria in people's shit than it does with pandas raised in cages. Irwin wasn't an environmentalist, he was a travesty of environmentalism. People claim he promoted a love of nature but it's more accurate to say he promoted a perversion and exploitation of nature. Irwin took animals out of their habitats and put them on a pedestal for people to gawk at. Nature isn't animals and plants, nature is a system of animals and plants. If you want to see a genuine environmentalist, look to David Attenborough.

It's the same kind of thinking that gets people to feel sad for the cows with their big brown eyes but be scared of the evil bacteria in their guts, the same bacteria that are as important to a human being as the liver or kidneys. This is not a talking point. People's actions are informed by their beliefs, and beliefs that "cute animals are good, ugly animals are evil" do an incredible amount of damage both directly to humanity (as when people take antibiotics without appreciating that it is a kind of chemotherapy) and indirectly by destroying the biosphere.

What Irwin did wasn't founded on any notions of goodness. So how did he get away with it? How could he ever have been mistaken for an environmentalist? Well he got away with it because the environmental movement is split between two factions, the same two factions that divide every sector of our society. Enlightenment progressives and Romantics. The distinction between environmentalists and animal lovers (or animal rights activists) is the distinction between the Enlightenment (rationalists) and the Romantic (intuitionists) movements. David Brin talks about these distinct movements in history.

A lot of people in the green movement are animal lovers and not environmentalists. This is a kind of magical thinking, much like the irrational terror of radiation. The problem with this magical thinking is that it doesn't lead to rational decision-making. Actually, the problem with this particular brand of magical thinking is that there's a whole psycho-dynamic behind it that involves hatred of humans and seeking union with the nature that's being "murdered" by humans. These people worry about bears, wolves, and tigers because they're mammals like us and they have the big eyes that make them anthropomorphizable. So they devote resources to those animals with big eyes. Meanwhile, what we really have to be worried about are the algae, the phytoplankton, frogs and insects. We should be worried about the animals and plants that are dirty, slimy and repulsive, not the ones that are cute and cuddly.

I don't really keep up with conservation issues, but I'll give you an example from the energy sector. In the 70s, the world had the option of going to nuclear. Nuclear power is safe and sensible, and the fear of radiation is completely irrational. Storage of nuclear waste and even reactors blowing up were never issues until the greens made them issues. The greens made nuclear power economically and politically expensive. As a result the world never went nuclear. So what are we left with? Coal. Coal was always far, far more dangerous than nuclear ever was. Acid rain? That was the environmentalists' cause during the 80s. There would have been no acid rain with nuclear power. And you know what else there wouldn't have been? Global warming. Greens caused 50-80% of the global warming problem. The global warming we're seeing today wouldn't have happened until 2030 by which time electric cars would already have solved the problem. That's the power of irrationality.

I will leave you with this final thought in mind. The harmony of nature is that of overwhelming and collective murder.