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

As promised ...

You're right.

I want the power to protect my children and grandchildren. I don't feel like that's something to either apologize for or be proud of. I didn't choose that desire .... it's coded into my DNA.

What's in your DNA Lucifer ?

" i want the power to protect my children" doesn't translate in "i have a right to use unlimited violence to guarantee species don't get extinct in the amazon basin"

One thing that might make this thread more interesting and educational is if we could coax people to share to share more about themselves.

I acknowledge that I look at the world and wish I had the power to tweak it in accordance with my preferences.

I don't know what it's like to live inside the body of another human. What dwells inside of you ? Do you have any yearning to alter the world in accordance with your preferences or are you content to be powerless ?

I am seeking some education here about what others think and feel. I am only an expert on myself and I am share that freely.

What do you wish for ?

Lucifer, why do you invent monstrous fictional extremes to try and make a point ?

When have I ever claimed to want to use unlimited violence or protect every species in the Amazon ? Never.

I want to protect the survival of one species which is highly dependent upon the survival of many others.

"fictional extremes", you literally listed biodiversity as one of the things you think are shared worldwide *and justify a world government to be protected*.

I think it is abhorrent and morally horrific that you want to have ANY POWER WHATSOVER to regulate biodiversity protection outside your own ****ing country.

And i also think that "biodiversity" isn't an inherent value at all, as NOTHING HAS INHERENT VALUE OUTSIDE HUMANITY, everything else only has value when it benefits us measurably.

And ofc even within humanity it doesn't mean every single human being necessarily has inherent value either.

I have some questions and comments for you Lucifer .....

1) who should have jurisdiction over oceanic plankton ?

2) I don't have my own country. I don't own any countries nor do I recognize national boundaries as being something particularly helpful going forward.

3) Do you not understand that human survival is integrated with the survival of other species ?

4) Value is a subjective quality. If I value all humans, that's my business. If you don't, that's your business.

I don't think anything close to modern agriculture is fully compatible with the first rule.

You seem to be arguing that any human activity that negatively affected biodiversity would be prohibited. I agree that you are not arguing that humans have to take steps to prevent things that would occur even if humans disappeared from earth.

Yeah, and I don't think we can make this problem disappear by insisting that our dictator will be a good dictator.

1) ever heard of territorial waters, exclusive economic zones and so on for water? it's not like the world never discussed the topic. So depending on where that plankton is, this map more or less gives you the current answer

Now if the question is "who should own it", the general answer is "those who take it and can defend it from further aggression" as with all other property, and never "humanity" lol.

2) You are a member of one (or more) countries. You would like the world to be different i get it, but it isn't.

3) not with the survival of all other species no. We thrived very well even with mass exctinctions in australia after we arrived there. Actually it's one of the richest countries in the world, and would probably be better off if they managed to wipe out more species. We need animals and plants and benefit from there sure, doesn't mean all existing life forms are useful for us and that we should care about them inherently.

That's a bit too extreme of a framing.

In order to live, we have to eat other living things, including plants. In order to build homes, we need to cut down trees and mine sand for cement and dig for metals.

There is no zero impact scenario.

We need to ensure that the biodiversity important to humans is retained. We can't kill all of the bees or wipe out ocean ecosystems without it coming back to bite us.

In the end, it's about maintaining a stable balance.

Humans btw cause exctinction wherever they go (and that was true even well before current technological progress was available), we are an apex predator and a species that massively changes it's environment.

So in order to be pro-human you have not only to accept, but to embrace our role as exterminators of useless (for us) life forms. That's actually our natural role, and how we thrive. By massively landscaping our surrounding, causing countless species balanced on the previous ecological equilibrium to die, while we massively help very few species useful for us to thrive as well.

We don't need to have 100+ different large mammals or birds to eat for example, a few are more than enough. And no we aren't worse off because the Dodo isn't with us anymore either.

And especially we do not need 5k cockroaches species to exist . or 3500 mosquito species and so on

I assume that your basis for the bolded is my statement that I would want to hear the advice of others before deciding which among your full range of environmental policies was feasible and advisable, in which case, LOL. I also am unclear on why my acknowledgment that I don't know everything about everything makes me unfit to have an opinion on what form of government there should be.

Strictly speaking, I guess this is true, but I don't know how you could have a functional global society without some sort of judiciary. I don't think King Nut Nut is going to have time to preside over every legal dispute that arises in the world. But at least you have thought things through enough to be entitled to have an opinion on what humanity needs in the form of a government.

By you or me? I was just extrapolating from your rule as written. Unlike me, you are the guy who has thought things through enough to be entitled to have an opinion. In light of your nearly unique status, I assumed you were being careful about how you wrote your golden rules.

That's true. We agree on something.

Now .... how about explaining to the audience which forces are at work in the universe which prevent humans from causing their own extinction ?

We don't know if there are any and the Fermy paradox is still fully with us.

But what if, say, it's the fear of environmental collapse leading to a unified planetary government IS WHAT ACTUALLY CAUSES INTELLIGENT SPECIES TO GO EXTINCT, instead of environmental collapse itself? what if fear is the exctinction risk?

Do you understand how much other human exctinction risks increase with a planetary, totalitarian government? whomever controls that entity at any given time has the power to kill us all

To me, you are acknowledging your laziness here.

You "would" want to hear the advice of others, but you haven't sought it out and educated yourself. Why not ?

My rule as written included the word "despoil". Go find a dictionary and read the definition of the word despoil.

There are currently many national entities which have the power to kill us all. The USA, Russia and China for starters.

Why does reducing the number of entities increase the risk ?

Why do you dodge so many questions Lucifer ?

I asked you about responsibility for ocean plankton and you respond with cockroaches.

Honestly, it's just the peak of arrogance to criticize someone for wanting to solicit more advice before making a complicated policy decision that would apply on a global basis. That is how every responsible leader should operate.

And it's more than a little rich coming from you. You feel perfectly competent to opine on a global government, even though there are a million things you haven't considered. For example:

How would you organize and staff a global police force?

How would you seize the means of production? How would you seize private assets? Do you plan on compensating people whose assets you seize? If so, how? Would you use force against people who were unwilling to allow their assets to be seized?

How would you staff the means of production? How would you ensure the cooperation of people with subject matter expertise whose assets you just seized? For example, let's assume you think it is important to continue the production of solar panels? How would you ensure the cooperation of the people with expertise in producing solar panels whose assets you just seized? Would you threaten them with violence? Would you deny them to access to government services?

Do you plan to redistribute assets on a global basis? If so, what would be your mechanism for doing so?

How would you handle countries that don't want to be under the auspices of your global government (of which there are sure to be many)? Would you compel them by force? What would that look like? A ground invasion? With what army? Will you compel rogue countries by force even if they have nuclear weapons and are threatening to use them?

How will you handle freedom of movement? Will be people be allowed to migrate? You mentioned earlier that you might have to impose limits on migration in order to prevent a refugee crisis? How would you decide who is allowed to migrate and who is not? For those who are not allowed to migrate, would you forcibly return them to where they came from or forcibly relocate them to somewhere else?

What language would this global government use? Would you mandate a common language and force everyone to become educated in and use that language? If so, what would the language be? What would you say to people who argue that your global government will destroy cultures that ought to be preserved (which it surely will)? Would you just tell them to **** off?

What sort of legal system, if any, would this global government have? Common law like the U.S. and the U.K.? Civil law like a lot of continental Europe? Something else entirely? If there were to be a judiciary, how would judges be identified and selected?

How would you staff schools and hospitals in areas where adequately trained teachers, doctors, nurses, etc., were in short supply? Would you forcibly relocate trained professionals from other areas of the world? If so, how would you deal with the fact that your Chinese teacher doesn't know Swahili?

I could come up with a 400-page book of questions like this. And the implication of your prior response is that someone must have educated themselves on the answers these questions, and must believe that they can answer these questions without soliciting advice from experts, in order to be competent to have an opinion on what humanity needs in the form of government. To state the obvious, that would mean you aren't competent to have such an opinion.

If you have questions and are interested in discussing different scenarios associated with future human societal adaptation, I'm game.

If your here to claim ability to read minds ..... that's above my pay grade to fix.

I'm not a savior or a messiah. I'm a person trying to provide what I believe to be the adaptive recipe for the survival of our species.

Are we likely to make the necessary adaptations ?

The cynical side of me says no.

The romantic side says maybe.

Great. My mistake. Please identify the experts you have consulted on the questions I have posed and explain what your answers are.