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

Lucifer .... are you aware that mass extinctions are a regular occurence in Earth's history ?

Are you aware that human civilization is only ~ 10k years old and the current atmospheric and ocean chemistry has not been present on Earth for over 10 million years ?

Are you aware that there has never been a version of Earth with current plastic pollution ?

Well, I spent a lot of years debating religion and my conclusion then - as it is now- was that there is no functional difference between atheism and deism.

When you reject revelation, then all you have go by is the world as you see it. Some nameless and faceless deity doesn't change anything.

I am aware species get extinct all the times, but at the same time it's not normal at all for a cosmopolitan genus. It can happen but it's exceptionally rare.

What actually happens in mass extinction events is that cosmopolitan genera spread even better because local optimizers for local conditions get extinct.

So in order to discuss the probability of **** to end up extinct, even if you want to disregard the unique and completly unprecedented for all other life forms question of intelligence, you need to check how often and why living forms that are already capable to live everywhere on the planet can get extinct.

Which quite different than having an exctinction because a local ecological system collapses and many species which were optimized for that disappear.

You keep insisting with "plastic pollution" because you have found some rabbit hole that convinced you microplastics are death, can't do much about convincing you that no, your fears over that are overblown.

You seem acutely interested in finding something to fear, and the market is very good at providing you with plenty of options.

Now **** sapiens sapiens is a specific species, yet we are the only surviving species of the genus ****. Usually that means we are pretty fragiles (succesful genera specialize through speciation in different environments given enough time).

But unlike all other living forms, thanks to intelligence (and then writing), we do develop environmental optimizations in a lamarckian way (=technological accumulation). So even if we are all the same species, **** sapiens sapiens already functionally speciated which is why some of us can live and thrive in siberia, others can live and thrive in arizona (30-40 celsius difference, completly different local food sources).

So we can confidently treat **** sapiens sapiens not as a fragile species rather as a cosmopolitan genus very well adapted to all the exceptionally different environments of earth with just a few exceptions. In order to get extinct, ALL OF THOSE ENVIRONMENTS at the same time need to become unlivable for human beings.

That can happen with some level of planetary disruption but lol at thinking 3 or 4 or 5 celsius of warming (especially because 1.5 already happened *and we thrive better than before*) or microplastics would qualify.

We need either some astronomical event that puts the earth out of the sun orbit or something at that level, or complete annihilation by nuclear weapons (but it's possible thousands of h bombs would be needed to achieve that) or the like.

And keep in mind having a single global government OBVIOUSLY INCREASES SOME OF THOSE RISKS.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...

The pervasive presence of MPs (microplastics) in various environmental matrices poses significant challenges to public health, necessitating urgent attention from the scientific community and policymakers alike. This review elucidates the complex interactions between MPs and human health, revealing their potential to disrupt cellular functions, induce inflammatory pathways, and exacerbate oxidative stress. The evidence presented underscores the multifactorial nature of MP toxicity, particularly when considered alongside other environmental contaminants, which may synergistically enhance health risks.

You want to know what's rare ..... doubling the greenhouse forcing in a little over a century. There is no record of that happening in Earth's 4.5B year history.

In fairness, you haven't provided any data or other quantitative evidence for your ultimate conclusion either -- namely, that a global communist dictatorship would provide a better response to climate change than some other form of government.

Yes, you have provided a lot of data about climate change. But I could provide you with every piece of data in the history of the world about the order of the natural world, and it wouldn't prove that there was an intelligent designer. If you choose to believe in intelligent design, sure, you can make arguments, but at the end of the day, it is largely a leap of faith. Believing in the efficacy of a global communist dictatorship seems like an even bigger leap of faith because we have never seen such a government act beneficently on a smaller scale.

I have clearly spelled out the policies I would pursue.

Is it not clear than policies such as eliminating private internal combustion automobiles and ending recreational jet aviation would reduce emissions substantially ? Is it not clear that banning cryptocurrency mining like bitcoin and AI data centers would dramatically reduce the need for electricity ? Is it not clear that eliminating sovereign tribal militaries would substantially reduce emissions ? Is it not clear that having food and supplies delivered by EV fleets is less carbon intensive than evryone driving to the supermarket themselves ? Is it not clear that 500 sf homes require less energy to heat and cool than 5000 sf homes ?

What kind of quantification would you like ?

I didn't say that you had failed to explain what policies you want.

I said you had not provided any sort of scientific proof, backed by quantitative data, to support your assertion that a communist dictatorship would actually govern in the way you want it to govern. In fairness to you, that sort of scientific proof in support of your ultimate conclusion isn't really possible.

But I don't think you can cast your ultimate conclusion as scientific while criticizing other people as unscientific for having a more skeptical opinion of a global communist dictatorship.

I have a few questions for you Rococo.

How do you decide which political candidate to vote for when you can't prove that are being honest ?

If you were given the hypothetical job of being responsible for risk management against existential threats to human civilization, what would you do ?

Would you want someone to implement the policies I've suggested ?

Maybe a good title for the book is ...

"The Job That Doesn't Exist"

Referring to the job of Risk Manager Against Existential Threats to Human Civilization

I look at what the candidate says his or her goals are and whether they align with my policy preferences, I assess whether I think those goals are achievable in the current political context, I assess the candidate's prior history, if any, of actually pursuing his or her stated goals if elected, and then I make a decision.

But most importantly, I take comfort in the fact that I can vote for a different person next time around if I conclude that a different person would do a better job.

I probably would do my best to assemble a team of subject matter experts that I respected, I would listen to their opinions, I would make a decision about what I thought was feasible to actually accomplish, and and then I would make a decision about what to do. The less personal expertise I had in the subject matter area that was presenting the existential threat, the more likely I would be to rely heavily on the expertise of others.

I would need to think more about the full range of alternatives and get more advice about each of your specific policies.

Mostly agree, maybe didn't express myself well enough.
To clarify , if you add god into your science, then it should be expressed as (imo) an unknown constant(let's name it godC), same for the opposite view.
But having god/no god in your theory based on your own faith , how does that work exactly?

If by reveletion you are refering to the bible, then we are at an impasse, I refuse to debate anything related. ( I think it's a pile of garbage).

I know that you think that I am being churlish, but I am giving you honest feedback about your stated goal, which was to write a book.

As you more or less acknowledge, you are not adding anything to the discussion of climate science. You are just repeating the views of the people you find to be the most persuasive. Hundreds of thousands of pages have been written by various people about the threat of climate change. You are very unlikely to produce a book that adds anything interesting to that discussion.

What struck me as more novel, however, was your suggestion of a global communist dictatorship as the best solution (with you at the head of the dictatorship if necessary). I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has proposed a similar idea, but it certainly hasn't been widely discussed as a response to climate change.

Oddly enough, the novel piece of your proposed book is that part that you have discussed the least. How would you get people to buy into the solution of a global communist dictatorship? How do you imagine that the dissolution of nations would be achieved in a non-chaotic way? We all know there would be a huge amount of dissent. Would you use force if necessary in order to quell that dissent? Who would provide that force? Who would lead the communist dictatorship and how would that person (or those people) be chosen? Why do you have confidence that the leadership of the global communist dictatorship would pursue your proposed policies rather than their own narrow self-interest? (I know that you proposed yourself as supreme leader, which would solve the problem, but "all hail Chairman Nut Nut" seems, shall we say, improbable.) What is the mechanism for correction if the leaders of the communist dictatorship for whatever reason end up not pursuing the policies that you believe are best?

Rather than discuss those questions, you have just made vague references to human survival instinct and gone back to discussing climate science. And I'm pretty sure that I know why. It's because (i) you haven't given much thought to the sorts of questions I posed; and (ii) you know at an intuitive level that you probably can't answer those questions in a way that will hold up to scrutiny.

If you had to choose between collapse of civilization or a sustainable global communist dictatorship which put a hard cap on pollutants, which would you choose ?

The way to get people to buy in is to share with them the contrast and let them choose. If people choose collapse, then so be it .... I can go into hospice mode in good conscience.

Point proven. You have no interest in explaining why your proposed solution is actually a solution.

Somehow this guy doesn't understand that implementing global communism would be a bloodbath worse than any "climate crisis" he imagines.

I asked him how team science did in Germany in an attempt to go green and why team science failed spectacularly in every way possible. He didn't care

Please make a list of unanswered questions.

Lol, I see that no progress has been made here.

Guys, all Nut Nut wants is for people to say how good and smart he is for recognizing that climate change is a big problem that needs fixing. That’s it. He wants everyone to nod along and think, “Wow, what a revolutionary mind.”

I thought that I already started on such a list:

It sounds like you are describing yourself ... is that a Freudian slip on your part ?

I've answered your recent questions. I don't have good answers to the questions I asked you. Also, I'm not the one proposing to write a book.

Everyone in the world would choose option B if they believed that option B was both viable and the only path to avoiding option A.

The bolded is the part that you are just asserting as a matter of faith.

1) We get people to buy in the same way that Churchill did .... when he was proven right about Hitler and the Nazis. That involved him being out of power for many years before people acknowledged that he was right.

2) IMO, The dissolution of nations is already currently on pace to happen in an extremely chaotic way. Civilization collapse is inherently chaotic.

The dissolution of nations would obviously have to done in a methodical fashion. Lots of details to be worked out. We might still need some territorial borders to ensure that certain regions don't become overwhelmed with immigrants.

3) I'm in no position to take power via military or police force. We would need new laws which outlawed the unnecessary creation of certain pollutants and yes, there would be a plan to enforce those laws. The new government would have police to enforce laws.

4) The leader would be chosen democratically.

5) I have confidence that I'm telling the truth about the policies that I would implement.

6) The mechanism for correction is that the people elect a new leader.

OK. We at least are making some progress now.

I see no evidence that we are naturally headed toward the dissolution of nations and the establishment of a global government on a timeline that you believe is necessary to prevent societal collapse.

I didn't realize that you were proposing to maintain democracy through free and fair elections, in part because you kept emphasizing that unpopular decisions would have to be implemented.

We can debate whether free and fair elections are theoretically consistent with communism. At a minimum, I assume you would agree that it has not been a consistent feature of past communist regimes.

If all nations were dissolved in, say, the next twenty years, I have zero confidence that the world would elect a communist government in a free and fair election. I have even less confidence that the world would continue to reelect communist leaders once they started to implement policies that you concede would be unpopular.