My observations are that Democrats place most of their effort into fighting over a larger slice of the pie where as Republicans put a tiny bit more effort (no where near the amount they should) into enlarging the pie so ALL can benefit.
Both parties however seem overly willing to go to war, seem overly preoccupied with their own wealth and power, and unwilling to be responsible.
I won't pretend there are no environmental problems but I will say I am not convinced that global warming is chief among them, nor that it's nearly as urgent as the WEF and cohorts make it seem.
My view is that a lot of the global warming movement is really based upon my first observation of DemonRats, a tendency to fight over their slice of the pie rather than enlarging the pie, and this in my view is contrary to an agenda of environmental responsibility because it takes away from the overall wealth available to put into new research and technology that could actually solve our environmental problems, things like molten salt reactors and nuclear fusion and space mining and vertical farming.
The Earth has finite resources and a reality of any extractive technology is that you always extract the rich deposits first and most cheaply, this included things like surface and near surface oil under natural pressure so we didn't even have to pump it out, just poke a straw into the ground and go.
Then if we are still reliant on those same resources and do not develop new technologies we start to extract more difficult to get at resources, things like shale oil and fracked oil.
If we were able to drill 500 miles deep, surely there are sufficient hydrocarbons that we'd run out of atmosphere first, but the reality is we will never be able to drill that deep and even if we could running out of atmosphere is not a good pursuit.
So we need new energy sources, but we can't adopt them all instantly, it takes around ten years to build a nuclear power plant, our first real plausible and adequately scalable energy solution, and really we should be building molten salt breeder reactors, not pressurized water uranium-235 reactors because we can't afford more Fukashimas and Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands. And because Uranium 235 is only .7% of natural uranium and natural uranium is only 1/3rd as plentiful as Thorium which can be burned in molten salt breeder reactors.
Further, of the nuclear waste that exists today, the only LONG term waste are the actinides, elements heavier than Uranium that were the result of Uranium absorbing neutrons and transmuting into heavier elements rather than fissioning into lighter fission products. The fission products will all decay to levels less than the ore they were derived from within 300 years, but for the actinides it will take as much as a million years and no civilization can keep them isolated from the environment that long BUT these molten salt fast fission breeder reactors can fission them and derive energy leaving only short term products.
So clearly if we want to electrify transportation, we need electricity, but the time frame to build nuclear plants isn't going to make enough available by 2030, the date by which the WEF and morons that follow it want to eliminate internal combustion engines.
The reality also is that we've got eight billion human souls on this planet and we simply can not grow enough food at pre-industrial CO2 levels OR without artificial fertilizers and the WEF and their infiltrators to all of our governments want to eliminate BOTH. They know this will starve 3/4ths of the worlds population but that is what they want.
Because many newer technologies that can help us solve this conundrum rely on heavy metals and these are difficult to extract from Earth ores due to their relatively low concentrations and chemical similarities, but at least the concentration issue can be addressed by space mining because on asteroids, where they are lot large enough for gravitational separation, they are very plentiful on the surface as are valuable metals like gold, platinum, and indium.
The more we impoverish people, the more we hinder these developments which are necessary to mankind's future survival. There are more Elon Musks and other technical and scientific visionaries out there that simply were never able to make a contribution because they were too busy with the basic necessities of survival. Instead of plunging MORE of the world into poverty as the WEF plans, we need to LIFT everybody out of poverty so EVERYONE can achieve their potential and we can get to a better place sooner.
Lastly, I do not like the WEF's idea that man should be separated from nature, because factually we ARE a PART of nature and should not be apart from nature. Instead, we need to learn how to live WITH nature, to create transportation systems that allow us to get to where we want to go without impeding the migration of other species for example. But stacking humans in 3% of the Earth 30 layers deep is the opposite of this, separating us from nature only means we'll know less and have even less respect for it.
BitAcadie
in reply to Nanook • • •