A commentary slams the "false optimism" around plans to holdclimate change to 2 degrees Celsius or less

On Sat, 16 May 2015 10:20:24 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:54:37 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?

We are an energy-based economy. There are few ways to create wealth
without consuming lots of energy. But a problem is that some people
confuse creating wealth with creating money. There are many examples
of the latter which consume energy but do not result in a net increase
in societal wealth, and are reasonably restricted.

Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Hitler, but Hitler was better.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 2:05:57 PM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 10:20:24 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:54:37 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?

We are an energy-based economy. There are few ways to create wealth
without consuming lots of energy. But a problem is that some people
confuse creating wealth with creating money. There are many examples
of the latter which consume energy but do not result in a net increase
in societal wealth, and are reasonably restricted.

Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Hitler, but Hitler was better.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Hitler was an empiricist via Darwin -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

The language of 'laws','evidence' and such terminology pervasive within empiricism is a scourge on our race as it projects authority where there is none.

There is no such thing as 'Social Darwinism' to soften the impact as Darwin set no prerequisite in his assertion that human social/political structures set a foundation for all nature. World War 2 and the attempted extermination of a people is a testament to empiricism at its most aggressive despite the attempt to dilute it -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin

There is a tendency to say - 'what have people done !' but so weak are the intellectual and spiritual bonding these days that I can suffer the horror in silence . All that is left are overgrown kids who lack the innocence of childhood,have the physical appearance of men but none of the higher traits like you dressed up as a sci-fi character.

On Sun, 17 May 2015 09:05:52 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.

I agree that there are types of wealth that go beyond simple money.
Certainly both artists and the government can create wealth (but it is
absurd to believe they are the only creators of wealth). But for the
most part, or society does not, which is why John is correct about the
strong ties between energy and wealth generation within the bound of
the modern world economy.

On Sun, 17 May 2015 08:13:07 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 09:05:52 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.

I agree that there are types of wealth that go beyond simple money.
Certainly both artists and the government can create wealth (but it is
absurd to believe they are the only creators of wealth).

There's something we can agree on.

But for the
most part, or society does not, which is why John is correct about the
strong ties between energy and wealth generation within the bound of
the modern world economy.

A farmer can take an empty field, with minimum of energy usage, create
a bountiful harvest for an entire village.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 17 May 2015 13:32:27 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

A farmer can take an empty field, with minimum of energy usage, create
a bountiful harvest for an entire village.

No, they really can't. Not practically in today's developed world.
Almost all agricultural output requires an extremely high energy
input- farm machinery, water transport, fertilizer production, crop
distribution, and a great deal more.

Sure, on a small scale a tiny farm outside a village can help feed it.
But that's not a workable model for the world.

On Sun, 17 May 2015 12:23:07 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 13:32:27 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

A farmer can take an empty field, with minimum of energy usage, create
a bountiful harvest for an entire village.

No, they really can't. Not practically in today's developed world.
Almost all agricultural output requires an extremely high energy
input- farm machinery, water transport, fertilizer production, crop
distribution, and a great deal more.

You don't *need* machinery or fertilizer to produce a crop. For
thousands of years farmers got along without it.

Sure, on a small scale a tiny farm outside a village can help feed it.
But that's not a workable model for the world.

Many farmers across the globe would disagree with you.

Nevertheless, my point is that socialists believe only the government
creates wealth while the capitalists believe only entrepreneurs create
wealth. I enliven in both. Wealth can be created with a minimum of
energy output.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 17 May 2015 17:15:20 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

No, they really can't. Not practically in today's developed world.
Almost all agricultural output requires an extremely high energy
input- farm machinery, water transport, fertilizer production, crop
distribution, and a great deal more.

You don't *need* machinery or fertilizer to produce a crop. For
thousands of years farmers got along without it.

Which part of "in today's developed world" was unclear?

Sure, on a small scale a tiny farm outside a village can help feed it.
But that's not a workable model for the world.

Many farmers across the globe would disagree with you.

No, I don't think many would. Given the chance, farmers in less
developed areas would eagerly embrace modern farming practices, which
result in vastly greater yields (and therefore vastly greater wealth).

Nevertheless, my point is that socialists believe only the government
creates wealth while the capitalists believe only entrepreneurs create
wealth. I enliven in both. Wealth can be created with a minimum of
energy output.

Can. But rarely is.

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 10:20:24 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:54:37 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?

We are an energy-based economy. There are few ways to create wealth
without consuming lots of energy. But a problem is that some people
confuse creating wealth with creating money. There are many examples
of the latter which consume energy but do not result in a net increase
in societal wealth, and are reasonably restricted.

Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Hitler, but Hitler was better.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Hilter was no socialist. In fact the first people he imprisoned was the socialists and trade unionists. Hitler was a fascist, as was Mussolini and Franco. Hilter was propped up by large German corporations who captured the government in a right wing takeover. Their policies of no contraceptives, no unions, special tax favors and no regulations for corporations (corporations were allowed to have unpaid workers, i.e. slaves) would resonate well with today's right wing philosophy in this country. The military-industrial complex in Germany under Hitler was second to none, and yes, trains ran on time. All youth were required to work unpaid on industrial farms and in corporate factories for at least one year - flicht jahre as it was called.

The German socialist poet Tucholski warned in 1930 that right wing fascists would destroy Germany:

http://www.textlog.de/tucholsky-deutschland-1930.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tucholsky

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 4:15:25 PM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2015 12:23:07 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 13:32:27 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

A farmer can take an empty field, with minimum of energy usage, create
a bountiful harvest for an entire village.

No, they really can't. Not practically in today's developed world.
Almost all agricultural output requires an extremely high energy
input- farm machinery, water transport, fertilizer production, crop
distribution, and a great deal more.

You don't *need* machinery or fertilizer to produce a crop. For
thousands of years farmers got along without it.

Sure, on a small scale a tiny farm outside a village can help feed it.
But that's not a workable model for the world.

Many farmers across the globe would disagree with you.

Nevertheless, my point is that socialists believe only the government
creates wealth while the capitalists believe only entrepreneurs create
wealth. I enliven in both. Wealth can be created with a minimum of
energy output.

Socialists do NOT believe only the government creates wealth. They believe both the entrepreneur and the worker together create wealth. Most wealth is created thru manufacturing, mining or growing a product. This requires workers, corporate owners, the service sector, as well as common infrastructure. Common infrastructure includes the judicial system without which nobody could prove that they owned anything, includes the police and military, includes the roads, electrical grid, airports and myriad other services without which products would not reach markets. It includes education which ensures that societies do not fall backwards into chaos and barbarism. Common infrastructure is what socialists want to maintain and allow to remain public and not be privatized.

When I was young and had little kids, we did not have much money, along with most of our friends. We would often have impromptu picnics in the public parks around Cleveland - all free of charge. We lived in the city, and it was always great to get out to the "emerald necklace" as the park system is known in Cleveland. It is a way that society can give a helping hand to those just joining who have not "made it" yet. The trend now in some states is reversing those kind of policies.

In the very right wing state of Governor Walker's Wisconsin, the GOP legislature will stop providing public funds for their extensive park system and will require entrance fees for every state park. It's ok with those who have a good income, they can afford it no problem. In fact they love user fees 'cause it keeps out the riff-raff. For those down near the bottom of the income barrel it's just one more activity that they will have to do without. On top of that, some park facilities will become privatized, basically sold to the highest bidder.

On Mon, 18 May 2015 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:

On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 10:20:24 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:54:37 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

1) Creating wealth requires lots of energy.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you mean that using wealth requires energy?

We are an energy-based economy. There are few ways to create wealth
without consuming lots of energy. But a problem is that some people
confuse creating wealth with creating money. There are many examples
of the latter which consume energy but do not result in a net increase
in societal wealth, and are reasonably restricted.

Hitler was a socialist and he thought only the government and artists
could create wealth. An artist can take an empty canvas and create a
beautiful painting that is very valuable and uses very little energy.
Yes, I'm comparing you to Hitler, but Hitler was better.


Hilter was no socialist.

Yes he was. I read his book. Have you?

In fact the first people he imprisoned was the socialists
and trade unionists.

He was competing for the same base.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe