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

I'm not representing myself as the being the source of any of the research which I'm sharing.

I provided a list of prominent and respected climate scientists. I'll name them again for you.

Rockstrom, Rahmsdorf, Van Westen, Hansen, Francis, Emanuel, Rignot, Sagan.

Rockstrom's field is planetary boundaries which define parameters within which Earth Systems remain compatible to human civilization.

Rahmsdorf and Van Westen are noted experts related to the continued circulation of the AMOC and the consequences of its potential failure.

Hansen & Sagan are (were) experts on the physics of the greenhouse effect and paleoclimate reconstruction.

Emanuel is an expert on the impact of global warming and strength of tropical cyclones.

Rignot is an expert on the polar ice sheets and sea level rise.

Francis is an expert on Arctic Amplification and the changes in global wind circulation.

I'm not asking you to believe that I am the credible originator of anything which I share here ..... I'm guiding you to the expert opinions. If you're too lazy to validate the original sources, that's on you, not me.

I've been completely transparent short of outright doxxing myself.

I have proposed some very simple thought experiments which allow us to contemplate our predicament.

One example is what happens when we put a bacterial sample in a petri dish with a favorable nutrient. The population of bacteria in the dish expands continuously until the food source is exhausted and then the population plummets to zero.

The "GDP" of the bacterial population was constantly growing as population and consumption grew continuously until the end.

What makes us different than bacteria with regard to the ability to restrain ourselves from over consumption ? What makes the Earth different from a petri dish with finite resources ?

Let's have an honest conversation about substance and pivot away from attacking the messenger.

It's rather fascinating to observe how people's mind's work. How addicted they are to drama.

At this point, no facts which I bring into the conversations can supercede the label of Nut Nut Is A Villain

watching the people gang up on me seems like an immune response ..... T-cells attacking a cellular invader to protect the cell functions.

Nut Nut is a very simple guy.

1) He prefers that the human species does not go undergo a massive and inherently brutal involuntary depopulation event in the near term.

2) He believes that the math and science reveal that we are on a trajectory to such an outcome.

3 He offers his solutions which primarily orbit around what he believes are sane regulations on the concentration of harmful waste products. Relative to the status quo .... these regulations are draconian and necessitate the fundamental reorganization of society as necessary to avoid a brutal outcome.

We are in obvious disagreement about point #2 above. I'm willing to go to the labor of proving that I'm right about #2. That's a laborious step and someone from the opposition must agree to participate in the process and answer reasonable questions. I can't debate by myself. I need a foil. Are there any volunteers ?

Your sane draconian regulations are batshit insane imo.

But besides that, everything in regard to the environment seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take. But that clearly ins't enough for you which is where a few things start to show face.

But even then, do your thing, just don't pretend that you're just a simple guy who is being unnecessarily attacked. You're not, you're being argued against, and you're going to have to handle that until you become King and shut each of us up.

Do you think a massive global involuntary depopulation event is congruent with a definition of sane policy ?

It helps to have reference points for how one defines sanity.

I think it all depends upon where you believe our trajectory is leading.

It seems that you are either saying

a) you're insane to believe that humans are going to make the draconian adaptations necessary to survive

or

b) you're insane to believe that humans need to make draconian adaptations in order to survive

pick a path and let's go from there ....

For me this is batshit insane ...

The unregulated accumulation of microplastics and nanoplastics in the human brain. It's correlated with dementia.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-human-brain-may-contain-as-much-as-a-spoons-worth-of-microplastics-new-research-suggests-180985995/

Smithsonian Magazine

The Human Brain May Contain as Much as a Spoon's Worth of Microplastics, New Research Suggests

even if you believe the world is on a path to have a 500m depopulation event (presumably because of lack of food?) you still need to convince people that a global gvmnt with draconian policies is preferable for their own lives as a solution to

1) spending more on food production and give it for free to the third world

or

2) accept 500m third worlders will die and move on

or insert the number of expected population reduction.

keep in mind that even if 4 billions die we just go back to the world population in ... 1980, so hardly a disaster (if you aren't among the dead).

actually it is fairly obvious that life for survivors would improve, as the real cost of commodities would crash making everyone on the planet consuming commodities richer in real term.

don't take it for granted that people will automatically side with "omg third worlders dying in mass is bad".

maybe most in this forum will. but in the real world, a lot of people would actually be happy if the population of dirty poor countries halved back to the numbers of the 80s.

a lot of people consider overpopulation a catastrophic risk, so why would they consider mass culling of humans a negative?

basically among the many objections you have to argue against this, remembering how incredibly selfish normal people are through their revealed preferences (everytime someone buys a 50k car, he is letting 5-10 kids in subsaharian Africa die instead of spending 30k for the car and saving them)

So ... this is an illusion. That we can just go back in time and settle in the conditions of the recent past.

Time is like a heart valve which only permits blood flow in one direction. Once blood passes the threshold of the valve opening, the heart muscle propels its onward and seals the valve behind it until the next contraction.

In 1980, we didn't have public internet or GPS navigation. We had paper maps. We hadn't yet cultivated a dependency on Chinese labor or their dominance in rare Earth minerals.

We will not be able to go back to the 1980 coastlines or the 1980 fresh water storage or the 1980 territories of disease carrying mosquitoes or the 1980 breeding cycles of tree destroying bark beetles. We will not be able to go back to the 1980 effectiveness of antibiotics. Or the 1980 level of plastic in our brains. Or the 1980 wind and ocean circulations and ice covers.

We certainly will not be able to claim that we are not dependent upon a stable environment.

That's actually an effective meme.

It's just based upon the illusion that our fates are not intertwined with the fates of others. That we are somehow advantaged enough to be part of the surviving subgroup while others die.

The French and British felt this way at Versailles in 1919. They were willing to let the Germans die.

The Republican Congress in the US obviously feels this way after taking aim at the struggling class with The Big Beautiful Bill.

The czar felt this way about his Russian subjects. The King of France felt this way about his subjects. The slaveholders in the American South felt this way about their chattel slaves.

Indifference to the plight of too many people has an inevitable karmic response from the people left for dead. They will rebel. Electing Trump is an example of an act of rebellion.

Man it's interesting you cite 2 examples where they didn't actually exterminate the groups, rather mistreat the groups a lot without actually killing all (or most) of them, which then caused a reaction.

You are just pointing it out that if you are willing to severely mistreat a population for a long time, it's better for your self interest to actually surgically genocide it so they can never become a problem down the line (ofc it doesn't apply if you live off a population misery like the cited rulers did, but it does apply to enemies)

You make a brutal but valid point.

What I would ask is how you would react to the understanding that you belonged to the 90% of the population that the 10% was willing to genocide ?

If you were part of the 10%, do you believe that there is an effective concealment strategy which makes it possible to effectively kill off 90% of the population while leaving the 10% intact ?

How do you ascertain which group you belong to ?

well you moved fast from 500m deaths to 90% of the global population which no, is not the same.

Let's try to play out actual scenarios though. "climate breakdown" the way you doomers believe will happen, situation in india and neighboring areas is collapsing.

They don't have enough food. You don't send them food with the excuse you don't have too much for yourself anyway. They start warring with pakistan / bangladesh for scarce resources. You supply weapons of mass destruction to both sides, they kill each others by the hundreds of millions, problem solved.

Or you H bomb both of them, which purportedly would cool up the planet right? nuclear winter and the like, so we actually also solve global warming, win win

Once again, you avoid answering the questions I posed to you.

because the 90% isn't the projected amount of needed culling even in your absurd scenarios. So the questions are meaningless.

the projected necessary culling is at most 25%, and quite probably 5-10% tops (500m-1bln which yourself admitted was more in line with what you expect, after having backed down from "extinction" nonsense).

Now the bottom 10-25% of the current human population has an Iq under 85, and lacks very very basic access to water, electricity, stable calorie sources. They can't read. They live under costant violence and threat of violence from their communities, in disgusting filth, with close to no healthcare.

So the question what would i do if i understood i was among them is very absurd.

First of all, if i was in that situation with my current understanding of reality i would obviously kill myself, as that life is a lot worse than death (coming from where i am). So the problem would be self-solved.

Second, if i was in that situation without my current understanding of things, i wouldn't understand climate change discourse (and almost anything else, remember: IQ under 85 and illiterate) and if i didn't want to kill myself, i would be preoccupied 100% of the time about my current survival.

So there is no need to "conceal" anything from them, they aren't mentally equipped to even bother to care about what the first world does, nor they have the time to do so because they have to try to eat every day and that takes up most of their time.

How do i ascertain i am not in the bottom 10-25% of the world population? not sure why you think there are doubts about that.

Do you think this description matches the Jewish population which was exterminated by the Nazi's?

I would say that you're actually quite a conspicuous person in a world in which the future leaders of the world have access to the technology which can trace internet comments to an IP address and an author's true identity.

Privacy is an illusion. That's why I wrote that I afraid in the first post of this thread. I'm sticking my neck out.

I am not sure you can read at this point. I wrote that the population which would die is illiterate, and you answer about internet privacy. Wasting my time here

And I wrote back with an example which refutes your contention that it's the illiterate who are always chosen to die ..... the Jews in the Holocaust were not illiterate.

The Germans who supported the Nazis and died in WW2 as soldiers were also not illiterate.

The Southerners who died defending slavery were more literate than the slaves they were fighting to keep enslaved.

It's not always the least illiterate who bear the brunt of a historical transition. It's often the people who defended the status quo. The czar of Russia was quite literate as was Marie Antoinette.