@@aliendroneservices6621 Just from the introduction, it's apparent from the intro that if someone doesn't have a LOT of foundational knowledge about the topics at-hand you won't understand what he's saying. Many things he rattles off as quick facts bring along with them certain other presumptions which not everyone will share. That leaves you disconnected when a follow-on comment comes along...it seems like a complete non-sequitur. This is an issue with both the Right and Left that keeps people who do not already share an opinion from even understanding what the other person is saying, let alone agreeing or effectively disagreeing on.
The middle part of this discussion (solastalgia, violence etc) has a direct parallel with the psychological effects of gentrification of previous decades (which we hardly talk about anymore)
Thx. The Druid and the Taoists knew how to negotiate life. Our current politicians have no interest in this class of information and are too mentally challenged to be able to process the information in any case. This is now a terminal problem - the only agency we have is to decide how we want to go out.
Let's talk about building a global platform for digital democracy so we can vote for principles and policies instead of personalities and political parties.
I am looking for software that will run on my smartphone so I can help build an open source, decentralized, and privacy protecting platform. The software will merge, deduplicate, fact check, and aggregate the knowledge and sentiment expressed in public conversations into a shared representation. My smartphone is powered with electricity.
Article 7d of the Earth Charter says, Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price. The COP meetings have failed to address a global carbon tax because the existing structure of power favors special interests such as the fossil fuel industry. Decentralizing the structure of power is so radical that people have difficulty imagining it.
@@johnkintree763 Anarchism has been a thing for 150 years at least. But not sure how decentralizing decision making will make goods and services cost what they should (ie go up in price)
London can only feed itself for three days, and then there would be general anarchy! It's probably similar in other cities around the world, unless the population is homogenous.
I don't know if I'm part of the climate community. I'm certainly worried about climate change. But I know something the climate community does not; namely, that in 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs' - Magma Energy Project demonstrated the technology to produce practically limitless amounts of constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal sources. Peter's discussion of violence is interesting, particularly given Roger Hallam's latest podcast from prison calling for 10,000 people to commit criminal acts, in order to affect political change. All leading to the question; to what degree Peter thinks the assumption of Limits to Growth underlies climate violence? There's no hope in the assumption that there are finite resources being used up; rather it implies an imperative to use resources even less responsibly, before someone else gets them and they're gone. But if in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to produce them, and there's an effectively limitless quantity of constant high grade clean energy available, to desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon - violence can be mitigated. Water wars can be avoided altogether, by spending carbon free energy to produce fresh water, for example. So why doesn't the climate community want to know about Magma Energy? Why isn't Magma Energy on the table at COP? Why does Rachel at 26:00 'go hard on materialism like a proper Marxist' - rather than demanding the development of Magma Energy technology like a capitalist with an environmental conscience?
Such a fantastic solution! Amazing that you know the truth and so many people just cannot see it. I would definitely buy a magma energy sports car. It sounds really cool. Do you have a link?
Sounds interesting but not every region has access to geothermal energy sources. Energy export has its own feasibility limitations as well. Also, not sure where you're going with the comment on Marxism --- if anything, large infrastructure investments are not good for profit, so why bring capitalism into the equation?
@@guapochino140 Yeah, sure. Magma Energy suggests hydrogen fuel for transport - so you may wish to look at BMW's Hydrogen 7. The prototype was a bit sluggish on the low end, and the MPG's are not great, but as one would produce endless amounts of LH2 to store and distribute Magma Energy, fuel efficiency is not a big problem.
@@hotcakesism Not every region has access to coal, oil or gas, and yet somehow they manage to dig it up and move it from A to even the most remote B. With Magma Energy there are several options; I favour LH2 - liquid hydrogen produced from sea water, by electrolysis, delivered by ships like the Suzio Frontier. But one could use batteries the size of oil tankers - load with Magma generated electricity, delivered all around the world and plugged into the national grid from the harbour. Or sand batteries the size of train cars loaded with magmathermal heat energy, and hauled by locomotives. One could have undersea cables; the current longest electricity interconnector is only around 500 miles. But longest gas pipelines is 8,700km; not a hydrogen gas pipeline unfortunately! Suffice to say, getting Magma Energy from where it's produced to where it's needed is not a deal breaker. The comment on Marxism relates to a remark made in the video at 26 minutes. I don't accept that solving climate change implies Marxist anti-capitalist degrowth, because I do not accept the 1974 Limits to Growth thesis of Meadows and Meadows. Because Earth is a big ball of molten rock, I believe a prosperous AND sustainable future is possible.
@@karlstone6011 Sounds like a great car. I'll start looking online today. Hopefully I can convince everyone around here to buy one. The median income in this part of the world is $8000 US per year, I hope that won't be too much of a problem. It is a 20 year old car after all.
The coming years will be a search 🔍 for meaning social break down will be in lockstep with climate a world traumatized will be much more difficult for All and people.i see small community holding on to each other possible some go back to small villages for just going through it together ❤👍☯️
My dear, thank you for your continued good work. May I suggest that you question your own identity is a Marxist. The work that you’re doing is very important and Marxism is a specific response to a division between rural ism and industrialism. Your guest brings up a very important point that you might consider making central to your narrative going forward. That being the divide between agrarian and rural society. Power centers, traditionally inevitably focus on rural societies to the detriment of rural societies urban societies are concentrated, and the people within those which only exist as a result of industrialism have no choice, but to have a dependency on centralized power structures. We talk about the need for new institutions that are decentralized and present the opportunity to reconnect with the need to provide stewardship over the land at the local level. For the first time we have the tools to think, globally and act locally beyond nationalism and empirical thinking. It will require some changes, and will require an investigation of identity, status and introduction of the possibility of creating new forms of status or at least revisiting old forms of status formally represented aristocracies that opportunity to obligation. If we are not able to re-create synthetic communities in place of those that have been dislodged by the transition from agrarian to industrial societies, it’s going to be very difficult to create any kind of social narrative which results and cohesion. But perhaps climate change rather than being seen as the problem is the solution to provide and external force which we can congealed our actions into communities and realize that we’re all in this together and introduced the possibility of a global narrative.
Marxism is a specific response to the material conditions of capitalism. It's a critique of capital, which includes but is not specific to the rural-urban, agrarian-industrial dichotomy.
@ I think that’s saying accurate statement however I’m not certain whether or not Marxist philosophy would have come into being had the nature of Not evolved to the point where it caused the break up of rural communities and the mobility of people and the definition of work and time. Within a rural community capital can take the form of productivity as a citizen as a contributing member to the community and real good. It limits the nature of capital to tangible things and it also creates a cost with an accumulation of too much capital becomes expensive to, concentrate too much capital therefore, traditionally financial capital within a rural community was translated into social capital in the form of something supporting the commonwealth. I’m just not sure whether or not the transition of a primarily rural society to an industrial society was not necessary for mark is thinking to arise.
This whole thing needs more wordsalad to keep it going! 😂
I'm 16:30 in, and I still can't figure out what either of them is trying to say.
"Chronos loves us all"
"That's it baby!"
"pressure across societies weakest fissures"
@@aliendroneservices6621 Just from the introduction, it's apparent from the intro that if someone doesn't have a LOT of foundational knowledge about the topics at-hand you won't understand what he's saying. Many things he rattles off as quick facts bring along with them certain other presumptions which not everyone will share. That leaves you disconnected when a follow-on comment comes along...it seems like a complete non-sequitur.
This is an issue with both the Right and Left that keeps people who do not already share an opinion from even understanding what the other person is saying, let alone agreeing or effectively disagreeing on.
The middle part of this discussion (solastalgia, violence etc) has a direct parallel with the psychological effects of gentrification of previous decades (which we hardly talk about anymore)
28:06 28:08 "I go hard on material reality, *_like a proper Marxist."_*
Is that significant?
Thx. The Druid and the Taoists knew how to negotiate life. Our current politicians have no interest in this class of information and are too mentally challenged to be able to process the information in any case. This is now a terminal problem - the only agency we have is to decide how we want to go out.
21:19 21:24 [correlated heat and violence] That's an argument for rapid and massive expansion of the use of fossil-fuels.
Love to hear more about that
It's great to see that a lot more people are starting to get interested in climate change. I'd recommend this pod's archive as well as Nate Hagens.
Steinbergowitzbaum detected.
Can we be "friends?"
You do the administration, I'll feed & pluck the chickens.
Let's talk about building a global platform for digital democracy so we can vote for principles and policies instead of personalities and political parties.
And what powers that global digital platform?
I am looking for software that will run on my smartphone so I can help build an open source, decentralized, and privacy protecting platform. The software will merge, deduplicate, fact check, and aggregate the knowledge and sentiment expressed in public conversations into a shared representation. My smartphone is powered with electricity.
@@johnkintree763 If you think you can take the politics out of anything, then you are just supporting the status quo.
Article 7d of the Earth Charter says, Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price. The COP meetings have failed to address a global carbon tax because the existing structure of power favors special interests such as the fossil fuel industry. Decentralizing the structure of power is so radical that people have difficulty imagining it.
@@johnkintree763 Anarchism has been a thing for 150 years at least. But not sure how decentralizing decision making will make goods and services cost what they should (ie go up in price)
London can only feed itself for three days, and then there would be general anarchy! It's probably similar in other cities around the world, unless the population is homogenous.
I don't know if I'm part of the climate community. I'm certainly worried about climate change. But I know something the climate community does not; namely, that in 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs' - Magma Energy Project demonstrated the technology to produce practically limitless amounts of constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal sources.
Peter's discussion of violence is interesting, particularly given Roger Hallam's latest podcast from prison calling for 10,000 people to commit criminal acts, in order to affect political change.
All leading to the question; to what degree Peter thinks the assumption of Limits to Growth underlies climate violence?
There's no hope in the assumption that there are finite resources being used up; rather it implies an imperative to use resources even less responsibly, before someone else gets them and they're gone.
But if in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to produce them, and there's an effectively limitless quantity of constant high grade clean energy available, to desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon - violence can be mitigated. Water wars can be avoided altogether, by spending carbon free energy to produce fresh water, for example.
So why doesn't the climate community want to know about Magma Energy?
Why isn't Magma Energy on the table at COP?
Why does Rachel at 26:00 'go hard on materialism like a proper Marxist' - rather than demanding the development of Magma Energy technology like a capitalist with an environmental conscience?
Such a fantastic solution! Amazing that you know the truth and so many people just cannot see it. I would definitely buy a magma energy sports car. It sounds really cool. Do you have a link?
Sounds interesting but not every region has access to geothermal energy sources. Energy export has its own feasibility limitations as well. Also, not sure where you're going with the comment on Marxism --- if anything, large infrastructure investments are not good for profit, so why bring capitalism into the equation?
@@guapochino140 Yeah, sure. Magma Energy suggests hydrogen fuel for transport - so you may wish to look at BMW's Hydrogen 7. The prototype was a bit sluggish on the low end, and the MPG's are not great, but as one would produce endless amounts of LH2 to store and distribute Magma Energy, fuel efficiency is not a big problem.
@@hotcakesism Not every region has access to coal, oil or gas, and yet somehow they manage to dig it up and move it from A to even the most remote B.
With Magma Energy there are several options; I favour LH2 - liquid hydrogen produced from sea water, by electrolysis, delivered by ships like the Suzio Frontier.
But one could use batteries the size of oil tankers - load with Magma generated electricity, delivered all around the world and plugged into the national grid from the harbour.
Or sand batteries the size of train cars loaded with magmathermal heat energy, and hauled by locomotives. One could have undersea cables; the current longest electricity interconnector is only around 500 miles. But longest gas pipelines is 8,700km; not a hydrogen gas pipeline unfortunately! Suffice to say, getting Magma Energy from where it's produced to where it's needed is not a deal breaker.
The comment on Marxism relates to a remark made in the video at 26 minutes. I don't accept that solving climate change implies Marxist anti-capitalist degrowth, because I do not accept the 1974 Limits to Growth thesis of Meadows and Meadows. Because Earth is a big ball of molten rock, I believe a prosperous AND sustainable future is possible.
@@karlstone6011 Sounds like a great car. I'll start looking online today. Hopefully I can convince everyone around here to buy one. The median income in this part of the world is $8000 US per year, I hope that won't be too much of a problem. It is a 20 year old car after all.
He seems not to look at the state violence
The coming years will be a search 🔍 for meaning social break down will be in lockstep with climate a world traumatized will be much more difficult for All and people.i see small community holding on to each other possible some go back to small villages for just going through it together ❤👍☯️
Or FEMA isn't able to meet high expectations fanned by contrarian politicians
I noticed both these feminists completely ignored the elephant in the room. This detachment from reality is one of the signs of radicalisation.
eh
Exactly what is the "elephant" that YOU are seeing?
Who's Peter Schwartzein?
My dear, thank you for your continued good work. May I suggest that you question your own identity is a Marxist. The work that you’re doing is very important and Marxism is a specific response to a division between rural ism and industrialism. Your guest brings up a very important point that you might consider making central to your narrative going forward. That being the divide between agrarian and rural society. Power centers, traditionally inevitably focus on rural societies to the detriment of rural societies urban societies are concentrated, and the people within those which only exist as a result of industrialism have no choice, but to have a dependency on centralized power structures. We talk about the need for new institutions that are decentralized and present the opportunity to reconnect with the need to provide stewardship over the land at the local level. For the first time we have the tools to think, globally and act locally beyond nationalism and empirical thinking. It will require some changes, and will require an investigation of identity, status and introduction of the possibility of creating new forms of status or at least revisiting old forms of status formally represented aristocracies that opportunity to obligation. If we are not able to re-create synthetic communities in place of those that have been dislodged by the transition from agrarian to industrial societies, it’s going to be very difficult to create any kind of social narrative which results and cohesion. But perhaps climate change rather than being seen as the problem is the solution to provide and external force which we can congealed our actions into communities and realize that we’re all in this together and introduced the possibility of a global narrative.
Marxism is a specific response to the material conditions of capitalism. It's a critique of capital, which includes but is not specific to the rural-urban, agrarian-industrial dichotomy.
@ I think that’s saying accurate statement however I’m not certain whether or not Marxist philosophy would have come into being had the nature of Not evolved to the point where it caused the break up of rural communities and the mobility of people and the definition of work and time. Within a rural community capital can take the form of productivity as a citizen as a contributing member to the community and real good. It limits the nature of capital to tangible things and it also creates a cost with an accumulation of too much capital becomes expensive to, concentrate too much capital therefore, traditionally financial capital within a rural community was translated into social capital in the form of something supporting the commonwealth. I’m just not sure whether or not the transition of a primarily rural society to an industrial society was not necessary for mark is thinking to arise.