Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society

1) I'd be cool with a queen.

2) I'm not ruling myself out. It's important for the integrity of the exercise to begin with at least one person who is willing to do the job in order to create a competition to find the person best suited. I'd be more than happy to hear who you would nominate for the position and what their qualifications are that you value.

fwiw - it's a shitty job. The person who would get it would have to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Look at pictures of how Lincoln aged during his 4 years as POTUS. There are lots of things I would rather do than have that job. I'm only offering to do it because no one else is.

Anyone who offers or is willing to do it would immediately become unqualified I'm pretty sure.

All you have to do is say whether or not you would be opposed to such an experiment. It doesn't matter whether the intention to do so is hypothetical or real so long as the consequences of our current behavior are in synch with such an imagined intention.

Regardless of whether anyone is intentionally engaging in that experiment .... it is being conducted.

Are you in favor of actions which would create a global apocalypse ... yes or no ?

Is the book supposed to convince people climate change is real? If so I’m not sure why you wouldn’t include actual climate change models and peer-reviewed science.

If it’s supposed to be an introduction it’s almost too complicated. You would need to go slower for a junior high school student. (Please don’t)

I always thought Microbet was an outlier as a lefty because the overwhemling majority continue to say things that convince me they are the most tyrannical muther****ers on earth.

Nut nut, other than saying that you dont want to do the job. Can you first explain again what it is that should be done?

How can you ask this when you believe every human action is in service to the survival instinct? Do you never self reflect?

Obviously .... decisions have to be made in terms of how to tell a story.

Do we begin with what must be done or an explanation of WHY they must be done.

I choose to begin with an explanation of where we are today and how we got here which provides the rationale for what must be done. I want to provide people an opportunity to have input on and debate the truth of where we are before I begin to outline the solutions.

If I begin with the remedial solutions without proving why they are necessary than I expose myself to a litany of climate denier arguments that I am inventing an imagined outcome and then I get bogged down in arguments required to lay the foundation.

I prefer to build a house with the foundation first.

Part of the theme of my writing is that the understanding of the human societal predicament is well within the potential understanding of a layperson. It's not more complex than what we need to learn in order to earn a driving permit in the USA. The big difference is that a driving permit is well understood to be advantageous to one's personal survival while an understanding of ecological ruin is not well understood to be connected to our personal survival or even encouraged.

I am purposely keeping the science relatively simple and accessible to laypersons and providing people the opportunity to disagree about very simple concepts. If I get into erudite scientific concepts which are beyond the capacity of laypersons, then I lose the attention of those people unnecessarily.

So far .... there have been no disagreements on the science. That's a positive.

Now I have to make the case as to why this understanding is meaningful to the people who share my aspiration for the longevity of our species and relevant to your political participation in the near future.

That's what my reflection reveals craig. I see life through the lens of evolutionary biology. It's all about life and death.

I have kids. Their future is imperiled. My desire to protect them is instinctual and primitive. Hard wired into my DNA.

I understand my primitive nature both logically and intuitively. That primitive nature is God given.

What more is there to reflect upon ?

When your kids were very young, how did you treat them? Did you let them be exposed to the harshness of the world or did you try to create a paradise around them?

When parents (universally) recreate paradise for their newborn, it isn’t simply about meeting survival needs. There are certain faith moves which every human must make to avoid aimless wandering into chaos later in life.

Associating this world with paradise is the first truth you must learn and hold yourself to. That way, even when overwhelming counter evidence presents itself later in life, you don’t get swept up in chaos, and you can tell yourself, “I know the truth, so as long as I’m a loyal seeker of the truth, everything will turn out good.”

As you’ve shown, you have a poor relationship with capital ‘T’ Truth. You’re unwilling to extend your trust and hold yourself to it in the way I’ve described. The only way forward is to turn back and rediscover the real foundational truth.

Once you do that, then perhaps you can be more free and honest in your truth seeking.

Understanding Collapse - The Basics

If we want to put collapse into context, we need to understand the fundamental needs of humans.

Requirements of Human Metabolism

We all need 3 things to fuel our basic metabolism.

Oxygen, Water & Food.

One thing I want to assure you all about. We're not likely to run out of sufficient supplies of oxygen anytime soon. We're safe there.

Food & Water on the other hand .... those resources are in jeopardy.

Food

Despite advance in indoor growing techniques, the major calorie crops like wheat, rice and corn cannot be grown indoor at scale. They require favorable and predictable weather which becomes scarcer over time and nutrient yields per kg are declining. The risk of major breadbasket failures arising simultaneously as a result of weather shifts are growing.

The functioning of the Northern Hemisphere mid latitude winds (aka jetstream) has already been signficantly disrupted by climate change. The chances that the overturning ocean circulating (AMOC) becomes significantly disrupted and approaches a halt for the first time in 13,000 years is growing and scientists are saying this is > than a 50% probability this century. This would completely change the weather patterns which have been presented throughout human civilization.

What is The AMOC ?

AMOC stands for Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

Some people confuse this as being the same thing as the Gulf Stream. It isn't.

The AMOC is a system which transfers warm ocean waters from the tropical Atlantic to the N Atlantic via the surface and returns the water back south via the ocean floor. The AMOC is fueled by a density gradient. Density of water is determined by both temperature and salinity with salinity having the greater influence on density in that part of the world.

At it's strongest .... the AMOC strength is 30 sverdrups. A sverdrup is a million cubic meters of flow per second.

The normal AMOC function is to bring warm salty water north to colder regions. When the water has sufficiently cooled as a result of its trek north and heat dissipation, it becomes the heaviest type of water which is both cold and salty. At the northernmost point in the circulation, the water becomes heavy enough to sink to the bottom like dropping down an elevator chute. This sinking is part of the entire continuity of the overturning circulation.

Why Might The AMOC Stop ?

The dynamics which might lead to a stoppage of the AMOC are similar to a stroke in a human circulatory system.

The meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic is bringing fresh water to the northernmost region of the AMOC circulation. Fresh cold water is not as dense as salty cold water and the infusion of fresh water is causing the normal downwelling to be lessened and everything is backing up behind it.

What Evidence Do We Have That The AMOC is Slowing ?

1) Sea levels are rising faster than the global average from the NE US all around the NA coast to the Yucatan.

The AMOC is like a vacuum cleaner which sucks water off the NA coastline. When you turn the vacuum cleaner down to a lower setting, the water that was formerly pulled off the coast begins piling up along those same coasts.

2) The AMOC current is shifting eastward

This is a little bit complicated. It involves an understanding of the Coriolis effect which also impacts the rotational direction of a tropical cyclone depending upon which hemisphere the storm is located. In the N Hemisphere, water currents stay in the right lane. Cold meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic is wedging its way south between the coastline and the AMOC and pushing ithe AMOC further east.

3) The Cold Blob

As the Earth warms, there is one region on Earth which is defying that trend. It's a region in the N Atlantic east of Iceland which is called the Cold Blob. That's the region where the fresh meltwater from Greenland & the Arctic is accumulating.

Consequences of an AMOC Stoppage

Apocalyptic. And likely to occur this century.

Obviously, since this last happened 13,000 years ago, it would present certain conditions which humans have previously survived as hunter gatherers. But there has never been a process by which human societies possessing habitat destroying capabilities (such as nuclear weapons and power plants) have had to competitive downsize. It would represent an unprecedented challenge which we have not been required to solve in our evolutionary history.

Water Shortages

Fresh water supplies are running thin in lots of places. Acquifers are being depleted. Glaciers are melting. Snowfall is diminishing. Rising sea levels are contaminating fresh water sources with salt.

Craig, how about you and I just agree to disagree and leave it there.

I approach life as a scientist and use the scientific method.

That goes like this .... Observation ==> Hypothesis ==> Experiment ==> Results ==> Theory

A true scientist always has doubts and never reaches a final conclusion. But for everything I opine upon, there is an evidentiary source of information which supports that.

You begin with conclusions which represent absolute certainty about things which there is absolutely no measurable evidentiary basis you can share.

You and I inhabit different worlds. I identify as a scientist. I'm not sure of the word which describes someone who approaches the world as you do. Brainwashed is the word that comes to mind.

As I said from the outset, I believe in God which is revealed in nature and through scientific inquiry.

I am not going to accept a version of God which is deceiving us with evidence. I can't rule that out, but that's what I'm going to roll through life with. Until proven otherwise, my stance on that in non-negotiable.

I respect others right to believe whatever they wish. I'm not the judge on what is right or wrong for anyone else.

The prisoner who locks himself in from inside should at least have the decency to not complain about his situation.

So ... I'm not exactly comfortable with the word "should". As disclosed earlier, there are a multitude of options available to humans faced with the relatively imminent collapse of civilization. One is a hospice approach and another is a struggle approach.

I choose the struggle approach.

The first thing I need to do is establish whether anyone else is even interested in struggling to salvage something of human civilization.

So far .... not a single person has indicated that they share that perspective.

So the thing I think I should do is ask people how they feel about themselves and what they want in light of the circumstances.

In the book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, one of the habits is "Seek First To Understand, Then To Be Understood".

So I'm using this writing to try and elicit a sense of where other people are at. You all are a focus group.

Imagine you are the customer and someone gives a damn about what you want. The customer has a role in determining the best customer service experience. But in order to get what you want, you have to speak up and disclose what you want.

I know what I want. I'm just trying to understand what others want and the only way I know how to do that is by asking.

nut nut I think people here and elsewhere just disagree with the notion that human civilization is near collapse because of the climate.

So .... here we arrive at a conundrum.

How do we get people to overcome the apparent fear associated with their reluctance to participate and even disclose a simple shared preference that our species survives ?

I confess ...... I am completely ignorant of the first hand experience what it means to be possessed by the fear of participation.

The only people who can educate me about what it would take for them to overcome their fear of participation is the people who experience that firsthand.

You people are the experts !!! I come here seeking enlightenment.

Paralysis via fear appears to be the root of our problems. I understand fear. I'm not immune to it. But I try not to let it paralyze me.

How can I offer solutions to any problems without understanding how to free people from their paralysis ??

nut nut there isn't any "fear of participation", whatever that might mean.

we just completely disagree "climatic collapse" is near.

even most people who take climate change as a serious threat don't think any actual collapse is near. they at most believe that some of the world poors will face increased hardship going forward. they dislike that so they are willing to do something to try to avoid that. but that's about it.

maybe 1% of the population believes that first world residents will have food scarcity 30 years from now. maybe 2%? they just don't believe that.

keep in mind that currently we have a massive food surplus, and that's with employing only a small fraction of our potential to make food (like we could easily make 5x the food we make in the first world in calore terms, ofc it would be more expensive to do so).

as long as the scenario you depict is something people just don't believe at all, you won't make any progress

According to Yale's most recent survey, 65% of American's are worried about global warming.

Collapse is obviously a deeper level of concern.

As a person who once specialized in economics, I think the opinions of the actuaries who are responsible for underwriting the potential losses are the voices who should hold the most sway. They're quite pessimistic.

I think an understanding of banks, leverage and capital ratios tells the story.

Take Florida for example. The cost of insurance is exploding as losses soar from stronger hurricanes on top of higher sea levels and the inflationary pressures associated with the cost of rebuilding.

Uninsurable assets reduce property values and undermine the municipal tax base which is property taxes at a time when mitigation and adaptation expenses increase. The Boomers are aging out of those retirement homes and there is no replacement pool of buyers.

The dominoes look like this .... the bond rating agencies declare these municipalities non-credit worthy so they can't borrow long term. Infrastructure is overrun. Municipalities go bankrupt. Basic services like law and order and maintenance can no longer be attended to. These regions are abandoned. The world starts to look like a game of musical chairs as people compete for the shrinking supply of safe havens.

Just because people can't emotionally cope with collapse doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

There are no shortage of people like yourself who are willing to present unsubstantiated conclusions which present their preferred outlook. But not many willing to get into the weeds and debate the rationale for their positions.

Then how come no one will come out and articulate their preference that our species survives ?

If they agree with you that there is no risk, what prevents them from agreeing to that statement ? What have they got to lose ?

Lucifer ... as far as I know, no one has appointed you to be the spokesperson for the community.

Actually .... I would love to interview you and have you explain the investigative process by which you arrive at your conclusion.

I don't think you actually have the balls to answer difficult questions. Your style is to just throw unsubstantiated claims over the transom and then run away.

No one agreed with you that soon, in a few decades, billions of people will necessarily die of starvation because the world will be physically uncapable of producing enough food to feed the entire population. No one did. Not in this thread, not in the climate change thread.

And polls don't agree with you either. It's one thing to be "concerned" about climate change, another to believe that within 2050, billions would die of starvation (that's collapse).

make a poll about EXCTINCTION RISKS because of climate change within date X: exctinction like actual exctinction, as in every single human being dead.

What are you personally thinking the odds of EXCTINCTION, because of THE CLIMATE (not because of war, AI, asteroids, or anything else) are within 2200?

Are you actually one?
What did you study/formation?

You are going all over the place, this reads more like a wiki page than your own reasonning.

What???
Is there a recent discovery about it?