pouët.net

I've learned lots of things from Fallouts and one is that making social contacts is much easier when you have a shotgun (or preferably a mini nuke launcher if they manage to build one before the next stone age).

hello: good stuff!

If I have learned anything from the world in general it is that, this is an absolute truth!

I was sceptical when I first saw these vids, around the time of their conception I reckon, as I have an eye on the conspirataiment circus and they pick up everything that moves on the radar. As I dug deeper I came to realise that it really is that simple, and that stupid. Unfortunally the cure is like chemotherapy, just about as bad as the decease it is meant to cure, properbly even worse.



facism. If these things are not by voluntary contracts, it is just more of the same shit, but this time on steriods! The larger the social construct, the longer to the top and visa versa to the bottom. This is not a recipe for social succes, and small scale versions of this model is failing badly atm. So bad that Zbigniew Brzezinski, the posterboy for the 'new world' argues that a small elect elite, who are not tied down by petty moral and ethics should decide for man as a whole, and then have local decision making governed by "democracy" (should we allow pot, can women drive cars, can gays marry, all the important issues liek....)

I hate it, I hate him, but unfortunally....I think he may be right :(

The alternative is survivalism, and for those who have never tried that. Go to Africa or Alasca and stay there for 10 years and see how that works out for you.

Chemotherapy :(

eeblis, you have some points correct about democracy, but democracy can give one thing or another. But when it comes to think about the shape of a society, I have a method: think about what a mother would do for her kids.

Men have the reflex of thinking like in a western: I'm alone, I colonise a new wild land, I buy a gun, in order to lock myself alone in a bunker with my gun, so I think i'm strong and control everything cause i've got a gun... I know that very well, I'm a man, I used to play the cowboy when I was a kid... but it's nonsense, no man survive alone. Even from the species point of you, if each individual are alone, everyone die.

If you consider to survive from a family point of view, everything becomes clear: you manage a family, your neighbours manage families, you all got the same needs, you can help each others. You can produce more food variety by being together, etc...

I like that method, but to a certain degree :)

Mothers are over-protective. Denmark has what one of our national scolders called 'the uterus society'. The state takes over in all affairs, for our own good obviously. All things are made laws, and the personal responsability goes out the window with it. If there is a 'the shire' in the world, Denmark is it, for better and for worse.

The same family mechanisms you describe, and that I agree with, are present regardless of the rule. Infact it would seem that the more oppresive the regime, the more people band together willingly. Perhaps an awful truth is that if we do not desperately need eachother, we do not really give a shit about eachother. I would love to think it was otherwise, but I don't think the facts points in that direction but in a very few pious dogooders.

I believe that democracy was a shortlived fad. One that lasted untill someone somewhere realised that what the individual groups of people do, affect all of them. Individual 'tribes' worldwide will properbly benefit from a direct democratic model were you participate directly. But the national state was a bad idea from it's unholy conception, and one that will go away. The question is, should it be broken down further, which I think it should, or should it just blend in with a superstate, in a supernation, which I think is properbly the sensible thing, but is a fucking awfull thought!

jeremy Clarkson thinks were fucked;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article5292547.ece

"These, as I see them, are the facts. Planet Earth thought it had £10. But it turns out we had only £2. Which means everyone must lose 80% of their wealth. And that’s going to be a problem if you were living on the breadline beforehand.

Eventually, of course, the system will reboot itself, but for a while there will be absolute chaos: riots, lynchings, starvation. It’ll be a world without power or fuel, and with no fuel there’s no way the modern agricultural system can be maintained. Which means there will be no food either. You might like to stop and think about that for a while.

I have, and as a result I can see the day when I will have to shoot some of my neighbours - maybe even David Cameron - as we fight for the last bar of Fry’s Turkish Delight in the smoking ruin that was Chipping Norton’s post office.

I believe the government knows this is a distinct possibility and that it might happen next year, and there is absolutely nothing it can do to stop Cameron getting both barrels from my Beretta. But instead of telling us straight, it calls the crisis the “credit crunch” to make it sound like a breakfast cereal and asks Alistair Darling to smile and big up Gordon when he’s being interviewed."

so true!

I liked his "one eyed idiot" comment.

And this one...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7766057.stm

Yep.

is he right? is it that bad?

I don't know to what extent, but think about how all that money is made or where it comes from. Most of it is purely 'virtual' - earned by speculation and not backed up by any real value.
At least this is my understanding of the credit business and stock market (which is perhaps a bit too much simplified).

Yes, unsurprisingly, the size of the human population follows a logistic growth curve, and it'll converge on a limit of something like 12 billion, which is "sustainable". The problem is it would be exponential if not for an increasing amount of death. It's the reason there can only be so many bacteria in the petri dish, because they run out of space, food and energy, and then they start dying as fast as they can reproduce. That's not a happy equilibrium.



The Earth receives around 2*10^16 W of energy from the Sun (and an order of magnitude more hits the upper atmosphere). Human electricity consumption is 2*10^12 W. And of course, in addition to the fact that the Sun constantly gives us many, many times what we need, there's loads of usable energy already stored up in the Earth (think Iceland's geothermal power plants), in chemical compounds (oil, plant life, etc.), in radioactive materials, and so on. The problem isn't lack of energy, it's finding efficient ways to exploit the abundance that's available, avoiding nasty side effects like pollution. And then there are plain practical issues like the fact that you use up a lot of energy when investing in renewable energy sources (building windmills etc.), so you won't see returns on those investments straight away. But it's not quite as hopeless as you make it out to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-BZfFakpzc The crisis does not sound so bad when it is presented like music. The newsnet works should try the approach :)

So, you can sum everything up in: the problem is not lack of energy... the problem is sustainability of its usage.

... basically what most people (at least, those without economic interests in energy commercialization) have been saying for the past 100 years :-)

doom, even if we could get all our energy from the sun, that would probably not be sustainable. If we used from the sun all those 2*10^12W from he 2*10^16W we receive... what would be left for the planet to actually survive? The planet uses that energy, it does not just get lost in the void. The fact that the earth exists as we know it, in first place, depends on those 2*10^16W it receives from the Sun... diminishing the energy it receives by "redirecting it" for consumption in the short term would probably be a complete disaster for the planet.

We are currently not taking many of the Sun's energy (in "unnatural" ways), so the cycle of life continues... break that, and the whole planet will be fucked (in much broader ways than it is today).

If we harvested 0.01% of the Sun's energy it might have some impact on the Earth's ecosystem but the vast majority of the Sun's energy is already just converted into heat as soon as the radiation hits the Earth's atmosphere and surface (especially in places like deserts where we'd most want to harvest solar energy), and energy doesn't just go away when we consume it, it still becomes heat in the end.

Plus, the Earth's ecosystem is very robust and has survived dramatic climate changes for billions of years. Shifting a tiny bit of heat around might do "something", but it's not even safe to say it'd have an overall negative impact.

.. of the portion of the Sun's energy that hits the Earth, of course. The total output of the Sun is fantastically huge compared to that (and also somewhat accessible, for example many spacecraft already use solar energy that wouldn't arrive on Earth anyway.)

This whole global warming is just a premise to stimulate the earth's citizens into retrofiting the planet for higher carrying capacity. Any estimate of carrying capacity is based on existing technology. By creating a crisis, the elite just allowing for more consumers. We are asked to sacrifice space, energy use, luxury. As a hippie i have gone from an average lifestyle to a bed a laptop, an led lamp and cold showers on the beach. Fresh fruit and vegetable diet. So under the guise of saving the planet we enslave 30 billion instead of the 12 billion possible.

Our technology already allows for giant foil mirrors to be sent itno space, if the orbit the sun closer than earth orbit, they can inrease earth's energy by like two billion fold. I know sounds sci fi, but the russians tried to do it in the motherfucking 70ites to turn siberia into fertile farm land, cant be that fucking hard.

I dont think any political system will prevail and save us, i think we will have a democratic capitalistm/communist hybrid. Where people will work through large organisational framework from ground up to build communism while democracy top down will keep quality control and fill in the gaps in supply and demand. Software, knowledge, essential services are already provided by various organisations with what resembles a communist organisation and motivation. The same people may well participate in the corporate capitalist world using their gains to undermine the system that pays them for the sake of the greater good. Similarly to communists working like ants and being good members of the party.

Survivalism is bad, yes, but as long as someone else has that idea, it doesnt hurt to have a gun.
The best historical demonstration of survivalist behaviour backfiring is the movie tremors. Just kidding, it is Steven Speilberg's War of the worlds. He has a working car and a gun, despite the danger, in desperation people try to get the beneficial commodity. And no matter the risk, people will try to get yoru shit. So you dont want to stand out. So maybe instead of lots of land, a hidden supply of baked beans, a gun(hidden) and a water recycling system in your house in suburbia.

I should be writing my BIOL paper.

If you haven't figured it out yet, monopolising the energy resources = monopolising war / power. War machines take huge amounts of energy, and this is what the middle east 'wars' are and will be about.

I agree it's not the lack of energy, it's the concentration of the majority of energy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and the desire to control those resources.

Well, here the concept of energy is quite relative, don't you think so? Think about it, if anyone comes up with a way to light up bulbs using pee, then are we going to have war over the most oftenly urinating population on Earth?

It's stupid, how we fight to kill each other over some values that ourselves have created in time. This of course includes our very first ancestors as well, if only they didn't evolve in a way to interpret different spectra for a purpose today maybe you wouldn't even know what light is. Then one day, the same principle and idiocracy repeated itself, a man came up with something that needs processed oil to function or that is made by processing oil, suddenly the whole world started to fight over a brand-new value we have created.

Indeed, humans are the least intelligent parasites ever to exist. We just don't destroy the host and ourselves with it after consuming all the resources, what we do is even more stupid. We simply destroy each other to claim ownership over an outcome of a concept called resource, in the process the resources lessen or get destroyed, humankind destroys itself, and the destruction of the host is just a by-product. Even the simplest parasite first consumes then destroys, whereas humankind destroys while trying to consume. Thus, in the end we end up with a huge zero in our hands but a destroyed host and nowhere to go.

This film is amazingly dull and boring. Every one who studied economics knows banks creates money.

Before seeing this film how do you think our system worked ( go on make my day )... If this scares you never study finance or even get interest in asset based securities.

i always thought money was created by a sailor, a construction worker, a biker, a cowboy, an indian and a cop!!!!!11onehundredandeleven

no.