Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Planet of the Humans
Jesus Christ.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
I am thinking that I need to re-read P. J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich sometime soon.
..-. ..- -.-. -.- / - .-. ..- -- .--.
me too.
P.J. was easily my favorite republican. I go back aways with him and the crew at the Lampoon. It was the Harvard Lampoon then. Bunch of clever fucks there. Precursor to snl, it launched some other stuff. Somewhere on youtube, is a documentary about this early Lampoon crew.

I wish i'd saved my copy of "Guns and Sandwiches". Iirc, the cover showed a guy, holding a gun to a beagle's head, with a sandwich in the background.
I find violence repugnant, but a good spoof of it is refreshing.

Fine line for the uber-pc gang.

Not being able to take a joke is one of the warning signs of sociopathic cultural disorder.

"We" need to collectively recognize the symptoms of this disorder, and decide not to feed it.
Oh shit...

What if i'm a sociopath?
And that last line above, which is fairly profound, is intended as a smokescreen?
With the long range goal of manipulating hearts and minds?

In this horror movie, you all end up as slaves at the stankerosa plantation.
(04-22-2020, 10:22 PM)sparks Wrote:  
(04-22-2020, 08:39 AM)stanky Wrote:  This documentary (free on youtube) takes a deep dive into "green" energy. It's very well done, but it paints a grim picture.

I'd call it a "must see" flick.

Just watched it.  Jesus Titty Fucking Christ.  We really are doomed.  Green my ass.  Renewable my ass.  Sustainable my ass.  A lot of eye opening material here.  Biggest shock was Bill Fucking McKibben.  What a two faced lying sack of shit cunt.

The only way  to succeed in surviving is if we control ourselves.  And we'll never do that.

Fuck me.

ETA:  I'm curious now just what the carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant really is.  There really is NO technological fix.  None Nada Zilch.  We are soooooooo fucked.

Spaaaarky!  Daarrrlin'!   Why the surprise that the greentech gizmos are making profits for the same investors who are making profits from the coal that powers the production of the greentech??

Isn't that what I've been trying to tell you for bloody years???  You were sooo intent on defending these arseholes on ideological grounds that you twisted my posts to be something to do with climate denying.

How come you 'listen' to Michael Moore and co saying the same thing but attacked me at every opportunity??

That movie is about the CON I've been referring to.  It has fuck all to do with climate change, it's allll about marketing snake oil magic bullet bullshit gizmos to the gullible.

Still,  at least now you may understand where I was coming from.  It's pretty bloody obvious that you never intended to hear it from me.  

I owed you that spray but I'm over it now if you are?

Thank you Michael Moore, is there a Nobel Prize for having the balls to call out the arseholes on your own side?  There should be.

Oh, and best moment in that movie?   Blood and Gore!   You couldn't make that stuff up!

Still don't see why I'm no fan of Gore's??  Still think he's the great white hope of the Green movement?  The valiant planet saver galloping in to snatch us from the jaws of CO2 ...for a big fat fee???    Bwaaahahahaha.  Onya Al, a true Democrat,  fooled 'em bewdifully. ... sorry but shit I've enjoyed this far more than is healthy.

I don't blame Moore for leaving out the obvious solution of nuclear power,  that would be just big a step for his Left leg to take.   He's done enough, and did it well.

You're all maths nerds.  Do the sums on how much acreage would be involved in burying nuclear waste as opposed to burying the noxious chemical crap and very non-recyclable bits and pieces of all those busted windmills and solar panels. 

We've got room for burying nuclear waste in Oz.  We can bury it back in the mines it sprang from. 
We'll even stop selling coal if we can make more selling uranium and charging fees for burying the waste.
Sounds like a great recovery plan for our exonomy. 

There are more elegant solutions for the energy/emissions/pollution/over use of resources than simply culling the population.  Please nominate who you would eliminate first before espousing that idea.

It's been found in various researches that the more affluent the population the less it breeds.  Providing the 'real' low emission power, nuclear, to those Countries who can now only afford to burn coal would turn the problem around,  slowly, but it would turn.  

But wadda I know?

I did hunt up your e-mail address to send you a link to the film.
I think i deserve 2 points for that.
(Or, at least 1.5 points.)

I think i need to reiterate my take on the subject, in case i've been misunderstood:

I've been watching some of the backlash from the movie. It has been widely criticized for some of its propaganda-like liberties with facts.
Valid criticism. However, all the rebuttals i've seen are also riddled with nonsense.

What disappointed me most about the film,as well as all the outrage over it, is the elephant in the we use energy.
It drives me nuts to see 'intelligent' scientists discussing the matter from the same tired angle:

First, we examine how much energy we need, based on how much we presently use.
Next, we adjust that upwards for the anticipated population increase.
And then we try to figure out how to accommodate the madness in some groovy way.

and it can't be done.

Unfortunately, population control is far too touchy a subject to be addressed.
That's a pity, as it remains the number one 'greenist' thing we can do.
But we can't discuss it. Even birth control and planned parenthood are under assault in my country.
(People with penises still rule the world, unfortunately.)

so, let's ignore that issue for now, and move to number two:
How we use energy.

My rant on the subject has not wavered for 50 years...almost as if i've learned nothing in all this time.
Actually, I've learned plenty since then.
(This might sound self-serving or narcissistic, so, apologies for that)
but what i've learned is that i was correct back then, and i'm even more correct now.

People are reluctant to believe that we could cut our energy consumption in half, without going back to the stone age.
It's more digestible to suggest a goal of cutting it back 20% by 2050.

I'm in a different camp. I'm certain we could cut it back to 1/100th of present usage, and have higher standards of living, overall.
All that 20% in 30 years crap is looking at the problem from above:

(I can picture the board meeting)

Well, Johnson, we've been analyzing the traffic flow in Los Angeles, and the energy needed to maintain that misery, and we've come to the conclusion that auto manufacturers need to be pushed to provide better entertainment systems in their cars.

That's brilliant, Smitty! We'll put the team on it immediately.

Even in my little town, Burkesville Ky, if you must know, which the stankerosa is 12 miles from, a town of 3000 at most, looks like Las Vegas at night, as you come down that last hill. There are four bright street lamps around the car wash place.
It's closed of course, but we're scared.
We don't want anyone raping a white girl at night, at the car wash.
Gush sweet light and cheap power everywhere!
Do not reconsider.. That's the main thing. We can only re-think stuff from within the old frame of reference.


"oh look! this new car gets 50 miles to the gallon! If i commuted to my job in that, i could save enough money to buy a jet-ski!"

what we seem unable to do (because of political influence from brokers of the American dream) is to realize the obvious:
You could go where you wanted to go, in a 30 pound vehicle, capable of 100 mph, with a one horse-power engine...and it would be vastly more fun and much safer than what we've been seduced into.

For fuck's sake, we've been conned. Every aspect of this "good life" is designed around maximum use of energy.

I'm not anti-nuke, in principle.
I'm more like
"Why do we need that funky technology, when i just figured out that our energy consumption is inversely proportionate to our happiness?"

Point being, from my perspective, we are wasting energy like it's going out of style. It's fairly conspicuous. Embarrassing, actually.
When me and Mary go to town, we always bring at least a ton of steel and plastic and weird chemicals with us.
(It's a Honda.)

Yes, i'm ashamed.
(Fuck off, haters. It gets good gas mileage.)

My pain is in knowing that i could go to town much faster, and safer, on 100th the energy
if America was invested in being cool.

almost no one sees it this way.

We're way smart enough to deal out fossil fuels and nukes.
And we have been, since i was a little kid.

That's the elephant in the room.
How can we get rich, selling this dream?

Elon Musk is pretty sharp. Sweet-ass Tesla.
In theory, you could charge it from the sun.

no no no people!

don't go there!
Don't be seduced by the acceleration.

You could be going from point A to point B twice as fast, with 1/100th the energy consumption.
(I'm sure Elon Musk knows this. But he wants to leave the planet, basically. he's given up.)

Wait, am i smarter than Elon Musk?
Of course not.

I'm simply less corrupt.

Welcome back!

In my defense, I can only say that learning occasionally occurs. That's what an open mind is all about. As for the differences between the film and what you've been saying, well, I'm sure you're much prettier. Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)