Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
I think the reason we'll be going extinct in the near term is related to our mating rituals. Mating is a competitive process. Like lions, mating rights go to the strongest males. And strength in the current version of society is defined financially. The drive to mate is deeply primitive and apparently, not something we can transcend in terms of female desires to find male provi
It’s about climbing whatever status ladder that exists, not abolishing the instinct to climb.
So it's not money for money’s or what it can buy sake; it’s the social status money brings in a capitalist society. As with socialism, getting rid of money won’t stop men from seeking status in that schema. We've seen that play out. So we’d have basically the same crowd in DC if we were a socialist country.
Pope Leo condemns climate change critics
Pope Leo XIV has hit out at those who minimise the "increasingly evident" impact of rising temperatures in his first major statement on climate change.
Reiterating the words of his predecessor Pope Francis, the new pontiff lambasted critics who "ridicule those who speak of global warming".
The Pope's remarks, at a speech in Castel Gondolfo near Rome, will be seen as an implied criticism of US President Donald Trump, who last month called climate change a "con".
Pope Leo also called for greater action from citizens the world over on climate change, saying there was no room for indifference or resignation.
The Pope was speaking at a conference to mark 10 years since the publication of Laudato Si'.
That landmark document, written by his predecessor Pope Francis, made the issue of climate a central part of the church's concerns.
Many credit it for helping set the tone that led to the Paris climate agreement in 2015.
The Pope should call Trump a lying douchebag.
He'd never do that. The article headline is a strawman. The Pope condemns sins, not sinners. That’s an essential principle of their faith. Just like the opposite, saying “X lied, therefore X is a liar” is a rhetorical principle of identity politics. Change that and the political temperature plummets, which is exactly why it won’t change because there’s nothing left if you take away the labels. For activists, that’s the whole game.
Please see a neurologist asap. I think you have dementia. There are certainly people who are clickbait doomsayers ..... but the reputable scientists work on reports like the IPCC. I'm attaching their synthesis report from 2001 .... that's 25 years ago dude. Doesn't say that civilization will be collapsing by 2025. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/...What I'm
As has been pointed out to you many times, the IPCC report doesnt' say what you think it says. Nor does most of the studies/scientists you purported to cite/paraphrase.
You're synthesizing the worst bits of what individual scientists and reports say to get a doomsday scenario in your mind. This is just a type of confirmation bias and it's clouding your ability to actually learn about, comprehend, and then solve the problems you're trying to solve.
As has been pointed out to you many times, the IPCC report doesnt' say what you think it says. Nor does most of the studies/scientists you purported to cite/paraphrase.You're synthesizing the worst bits of what individual scientists and reports say to get a doomsday scenario in your mind. This is just a type of confirmation bias and it's clouding your ability to actually learn
The IPCC report says exactly what I think it says. I've read it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downl...
Limiting warming to 1.5°C and 2°C involves rapid, deep and in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emission reductions
We are not making deep, rapid and immediate GHG emission reductions. We are not making ANY emission reductions.
You're synthesizing the best bits of what stupid mf's say to get a safe scenario in your mind. This is just a type of confirmation bias and it's clouding your ability to actually learn about, comprehend, and then solve the problems we're faced with.
C.1 Summary for Policymakers
Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for
all (very high confidence).
The IPCC is a conservative organization and this is what they have to tell us.
Which people, in their right minds, reads this and concludes everything is fine ?
The next version of the IPCC Summary Report ....
I'm thinking of a new title idea for the book.
Expressions En Route To Extinction
It's a difficult inner experience to struggle with one's sense of purpose, especially as that purpose is so deeply ingrained to our primitive selves.
My desire to protect my children from a horrific dark future hits me in my core. To give up on that role of protector creates a sense of existential crisis.
What am I if I fail to meet the standard for being a good parent that I set for myself ?
I suppose that these are questions which most people don't have the inner fortitude to grapple with.
I'm wondering if it's a good idea to tap into anger instead of sinking into depression.
I understand that I'm failing at bringing people together around an anti-pollution agenda. Is there anyone else in the world who is doing a good job with that ?
Kinda hard when stuff like what NASA thinks about the Earth's orbit somehow generated controversy in this thread.
I'm thinking of a new title idea for the book.Expressions En Route To ExtinctionIt's a difficult inner experience to struggle with one's sense of purpose, especially as that purpose is so deeply ingrained to our primitive selves. My desire to protect my children from a horrific dark future hits me in my core. To give up on that role of protector creates a sense of existential c
I don’t know about environmental organizing, or whether “bringing people together” is even the right yardstick. However, I do know there’s a proven model in consumer psychology for this kind of thing: plenty of people have successfully sold pre-paid funeral plans. Those plans have the same psychological drivers and requirements as your potential customers. But that success comes precisely because they’re not 'selling' final expense plans. What people are actually 'buying' are the material and psychological benefits:
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
- Physiological: survival, food, drink
- Safety: freedom from fear, pain, danger, shelter
- Love/belonging: sexual companionship, social approval, care of loved ones
- Esteem: superiority, keeping up with others
- Self-actualization: less directly, but “enjoyment of life” covers this
That list needs unpacking, but all successful persuasion appeals to one or more of those. And that’s basically what you’re describing. Everything in your post is just the unpacking of those same needs.
- The fear of a dark future ties straight into food, safety and shelter.
- The instinct to protect your children: love and belonging.
- The pain of feeling like you’ve failed that role: esteem, legacy.
- And the need for a sense of meaning or purpose in your life.
That’s it, and you’ve got it.
“You do not create desire for your product. You merely take the existing desires of the market and channel them into your product.”— Eugene Schwartz, Breakthrough Advertising
Well, you would if you had something for people to actually buy or do. That’s where a lot of your frustration with others is coming from ie it’s not them. Per the quote above, you’re not building a bridge from their needs and desires to your product; you’re building a bridge to nowhere. It’s like if someone showed up at your door describing an Environmental Protection Plan for your kids and you're like, “I’ll take two!” and he replied, “Well, I don’t actually have anything to sell you.” Ugh.
I don’t know about environmental organizing, or whether “bringing people together” is even the right yardstick. However, I do know there’s a proven model in consumer psychology for this kind of thing: plenty of people have successfully sold pre-paid funeral plans. Those plans have the same psychological drivers and requirements as your potential customers. But that success come
You're trying to create an analogy with consumer psychology.
I'm trying to get people to give up on consumption of the things they don't need. I'm not sure that an analogy with consumer psychology works.
What is transpiring is effectively child abuse of the most profound kind. We're stealing away the optimism of young people for a habitable future and filling their outlook with darkness.
If people can't even agree on something so simple as granting the government the authority to regulate toxic pollution in order to protect their children .... what hope is there ?
I'm trying to get people to give up on consumption of the things they don't need. I'm not sure [strike]that an analogy with consumer[/strike] psychology works.
Do you have an Environmental Protection Plan™ for your children?
You’ve planned for their future. Have you planned for their world?
Your recycle bin didn’t show up by magic — small actions do matter.
Download the free workbook and start building your family’s Environmental Protection Plan™ today.
☐ Yes — I care about the world my children will inherit. Show me how to start.
☑ No — I don’t care about my children’s future. I’ll leave their fate to chance.
Do you have an Environmental Protection Plan™ for your children?
Your recycle bin didn’t show up by magic — small actions do matter.
Ah .... the wonderful recycle bin.
Once upon a time, I was making a presentation to the local county Democratic Party about climate change and there was a mayoral candidate present whose career work was in waste management. After my presentation, she tried to steer the conversation toward her campaign theme of solid waste and away from climate change.
So, I asked her ..... how much solid waste was she responsible for. If the average family has 10lbs of solid garbage taken out to the trash each week, that's 500lbs of garbage per year to be sorted into recyclable and non-recyclable material, She said that's a good estimate of how much solid waste is handled.
Then I told her, that the average person in the USA emits 30,000 lbs of CO2 per year. An average family of 4 would emit 120,000 lbs of CO2 per year.
So, I told her that her focus was only on 0.4% (500/120,000) of the weight of the waste that we are creating.
She had nothing to say about the 99.6% of the waste (by weight) which was gaseous.
Moral to the story ..... recycling is a nice thing to do. It's easy .... the municipality gives you a separate bin for that stuff ..... it's helpful. But it isn't stopping the world from being poisoned with plastic which is largely unrecycled. It's a nice meaningful gesture. But in the big scheme of things ..... it's not adequate to save us from collapse.
Moral to the story ..... recycling is a nice thing to do. It's easy .... the municipality gives you a separate bin for that stuff ..... it's helpful. But it isn't stopping the world from being poisoned with plastic which is largely unrecycled. It's a nice meaningful gesture. But in the big scheme of things ..... it's not adequate to save us from collapse.
I meant it more as an example of how real change and progress actually happen. It’s not about some rock-star politician playing to cheering stadiums or crowds of people carrying signs and chanting.
AIDA is a marketing principle. Most people are Aware of the issue, some have an Interest in it and a Desire to do something; they’re just missing a way to take Action. Your solution to that is "Come join me!" People aren’t interested in your political aspirations; they’re interested in their kids' future world.
That was my point with the mock ad. Give them something to act on that actually does something. You get their email opt-in for your newsletter, build some virality into the message, and now you’re getting hundreds of signups a week. Like Scarface said: First you get the clicks, then you get the opt-ins, then you fill the stadiums. That’s a proven, plug-and-play, low-cost model to bootstrap almost anything, with the only variable being how well your message, product, service or whatever resonates with people.
Kinda hard when stuff like what NASA thinks about the Earth's orbit somehow generated controversy in this thread.
Let me ask you ..... what value do you perceive yourself as adding to the understanding of climate science ?
It seems that all you want to do is lob grenades over technicalities.
I simply reported that Milankovitch Cycles and the ensuing climate feedback loops are due to variations in the Earth's orbit which are primarily due to the gravitational forces of other planets like Jupiter and Saturn. This is verbatim what NASA tells us.
You decided to go off on some tangent that this would mislead people into thinking orbits would be circular in the absence of those gravitational forces.
This technicality you chose to pursue is immaterial to a layperson's understanding of climate fundamentals. It was a pure distraction and transparent attempt at one upmanship which was not designed with the intention to enlighten people about climate science. It was a gratuitous attack based upon something I never said.
The principal reason for the departure from a circular orbit is exactly what I reported from the get go.
As far as I'm concerned, you're not here to enlighten anyone. You're here to obfuscate. You can go to hell.
Let me ask you ..... what value do you perceive yourself as adding to the understanding of climate science ? It seems that all you want to do is lob grenades over technicalities. I simply reported that Milankovitch Cycles and the ensuing climate feedback loops are due to variations in the Earth's orbit which are primarily due to the gravitational forces of other planets like Ju
Dude...
You are literally in bad faith here.
A layperson would be correct in understanding that gravitational interactions with other bodies is the primary reason for a departure from a circular orbit.
what value do you perceive yourself as adding to the understanding of climate science ?
Also you are the one writing a book (supposedly).
You can go to hell
lol
Well, looks like he just fired his technical editor for doing their job: correcting a basic physics error that would instantly crater the credibility of the whole project. Because nothing says “trust my upcoming book on environmental doom that’s highly critical of mainstream science” like publishing a blatant scientific faceplant in chapter one. Then again, maybe all the physics textbooks are wrong and teachers are afraid of speaking out for fear of losing their jobs.
Well, looks like he just fired his technical editor for doing their job: correcting a basic physics error that would instantly crater the credibility of the whole project. Because nothing says “trust my upcoming book on environmental doom that’s highly critical of mainstream science” like publishing a blatant scientific faceplant in chapter one. Then again, ma
Please articulate what the "error" was.
Edit: I find this trolling rather disgusting. You come here and articulate an opinion about a basic physics error yet you can't articulate what the error was.
All I ever posted was that the primary reason for Earth's departure from a circular orbit was the gravitational impact of other planets. That's exactly what NASA says.
[I]Eccentricity – Earth’s annual pilgrimage around the Sun isn’t perfectly circular, but it’s pretty close. Over time, the pull of gravity from our solar system’s two largest gas giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, causes the shape of Earth’s orbit to vary from nearly circular to slightly elliptical.
So .... most of the departure from circularity is due to the gravitational impact.
I think there is little reason to keep engaging with you.
I guess you think everyone here is trolling and wrong and just out there to get you.
Just don't complain if nobody takes you seriously then.
