Presentation in Chico, California

The presentation embedded below was recorded and edited by Marc Haneburght, with my thanks. It is based on a presentation delivered 3 May 2016. Q & A from this presentation was posted earlier in this space.

Comments 118

  • Guy, great presentation as usual! I like your sober assessment of enlightenment and discussion of exponential climate change.

    One word of caution — I’d against citing to Business Insider. Their agenda isn’t necessarily left or right (or even particularly political). Rather, it’s to generate traffic to their website with stories that tend to be sensationalist and short on veracity. It’s not a reliable source of information, to put it mildly.

  • @27:30 “it is simple from a biological perspective”

    I have advocated for an Abiological perspective for a while now, because the laws of physics, such as gravity and thermodynamics (heat engines) is real (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion – 27).

    @25:10 of the video: “Interestingly you’ll note that the guy had a master’s degree in biology. That’s pivotal here. You won’t find very many other climate scientists, probably none, who’ll say the things that I say. Because almost no climate scientist are conservation biologists. They don’t spend their lives studying speciation and extinction. James Hansen, the most renowned climate scientist in the world has degrees in physics and astronomy. Pysicists, engineers, astronomers … they’re the fix it up kind of people. The american exceptionalism type of approach. Well, not if you reply on habitat you can’t. And we rely on habitat. We’re animals, human animals, and we need habitat to survive.” – Dr. McPherson

    We also rely on habitat to evolve or emerge. When did habitat for organisms evolve or emerge then … before or after organisms … before of after viruses … before or after molecules (On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) ?

  • Excellent presentation, Guy, as always!

    Many corrections badly needed:

    oldgrowthforest, May 12th, 2016 at 9:14 am you wrote, in quotes below, followed by my questions or comments in brackets [[ ]]:

    “Bud, you project, and it is so obvious.” [[What, exactly, have I supposedly “projected”? Racist beliefs, values, and/or statements, presumably? Let’s get some clarity on the nature of racism by considering this commonly accepted definition of the term:

    Noun: racist
    1. A person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. (Regarding this definition, please provide examples of where I have supposedly made statements suggesting that I consider one race superior to others. I have consistently argued based on much anthropological, archaeological, and ecological evidence that the general weight of all humans’ population and consumption impact throughout our evolutionary history has produced our self-annihilation trap, and at an ever-increasing rate as we have gotten access to more dense energy sources. To the best of my knowledge I have not made any race-prejudiced statements. Meanwhile, you and others here clearly have made MANY such statements claiming an alleged superiority of one “race” in particular, often paired with stressing an inferiority of another “race”, the “whities”. (See my comments to LWA below regarding my thoughts concerning the concept of “race”.)

    Adjective: racist
    1. Based on racial intolerance. (Again, please provide examples of where I have supposedly made statements suggesting that I have written or otherwise behaved with racial intolerance. Again, you and others here clearly have made many such comments, especially regarding inferiority and intolerance of “whities”.)
    2. Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion. (Please provide examples of where I have allegedly made discriminatory statements on the basis of race or religion.)

    If you will provide me with examples of my having done these things, as you have claimed, I will sincerely, greatly appreciate it, I will do my best to correct any poor writing I did that created any confusion, and I will gladly apologize if I have made any such discriminatory comments or have shown racial intolerance. I wonder: Will you do the same? Will you apologize to me for your ad hominem attacking, obvious, blatant mischaracterizations?]]

    “Your very first sentence in your own post regarding how some people will surely respond to your own racist blather by being low-minded enough to personally attack an author that no one cares about, is itself an ad hominem attack.” [[No, my comment did not qualify as an ad hominem attack at all; I just reviewed some common behavior that occurs on this commenting site that anyone who has read here for long knows about and that many people have complained about over time—and which you and several others promptly and prominently confirmed with many subsequent abusive, ad hominem comments. You obviously DID, quite successfully, turn an anthropological, archeological, primatological, evidence-based discussion into a racial fight, which you and others here appear strongly to wish to do rather than to discuss evidence in a respectful way, and you seem proud of and self-righteous about having done that. Subsequently, you did also later attack Reese. You appear strongly to prefer to change the subject and personally attack other commenters, authors, and researchers than to remain focused on evidence and reasoning about it. Regarding this, let’s quickly review a definition of ad hominem: “adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or to reason. Usage example: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives or personal characteristics.” Meanwhile, some commenters here seem capable of doing little or nothing other than making ad hominem comments concerning others, whether particular commenters here, or others, such as researchers or authors, and much more often than not the moderators simply ignore this interpersonally and socially destructive behavior.]]

    “… an author that no one cares about”? [[Have you read any of Richard Reese’s books? (Almost certainly not.) Do you have any idea of the extent to which his writing supports most of Guy’s work? (Pretty obviously not.) So, if Reese qualifies as “an author that no one cares about” (I do wonder how you come by this knowledge), because his work strongly supports Guy’s we should conclude the same about Guy’s books per your apparent reasoning, given the similarities, that Guy is also an author no one cares about? Time after time over years now you have personally attacked me and authors I have referred to based almost entirely on only the titles of books or tiny quotes while not having read the work you so emotionally attack, ands certainly NOT discussing in any depth the evidence and reasoning that these authors present. In this personal attack process, you often attack things that neither the author, nor I, have written. Please help me to understand what sense it makes personally to attack someone, especially for something that they do NOT believe? What does this accomplish beyond often turning friends into enemies? Instead of building supportive relationships, you appear strongly to prefer instigating “horizontal hostility”. How do you see this as helpful for anyone? Again, if you will provide me with examples of my having supposedly written in racist ways (as you and others clearly have), I will greatly appreciate it, I will do my best to correct any poor writing I did that created any confusion, and I will gladly apologize if I have made any discriminatory or abusive comments, or shown racial intolerance. Will you do the same?]]

    “Your bizarre fixation on debunking what you think is the ‘Noble Savage myth,’ is extreme racism.” [[Ah, no. Not by a very long shot. First, debunking the romantic idea that early humans for the most part supposedly lived peacefully, with great ecological awareness, and without damaging the local ecosystems that supported them simply does not amount to a “bizarre fixation” by me or by the many competent anthropologists, archaeologists, primatologists, ecologists, and others I have referred to who do this research, your insisting otherwise notwithstanding. Second, I spend a few hours reading six or seven books written by well known, highly respected anthropologists, archaeologists, primatologists and others about this and you consider my having done that as “extreme racism”? Excuse me? If you consider me an “extreme racist” for having committed this sin of learning about and discussing these things here, then what does that make the male and female anthropologists, archaeologists, primatologists, sociologists, and others who have devoted their lives to studying these things? Obviously way, Way, WAY beyond “extreme racists”, per your reasoning. What term do you use for them? Do you also consider systems ecologist Howard Odum an “extreme racist” because of his thermodynamic Maximum Power Principle that states that all life makes maximum use of the energy available—and this obviously includes Native Americans? This extreme over-sensitivity, wherein you insist on seeing racism where it does not exist, strikes me as something of a “bizarre fixation”, to use your term. Please review some commonly accepted definitions of racism and ad hominem attacks, for example the ones above.]]


    May 13th, 2016 at 6:45 pm you wrote “Before I go back to ignoring everything about you until we all blow up this summer, Bud, I do want to comment on the author that you find so worthy. ‘Flores circles the word ‘animalness,’ and suggests that it might aid the healing process. Behaving like the masters of the world has been very harmful to the planet. What might happen if we came to perceive humans as one animal among many, in a circle of equals?’ Is this a new proposal for how to see the world? That’s the traditional view of American Indian cultures, universally, and it had been for thousands of years. Only, they understood it all. They were brilliant.” [[Of COURSE some Native Americans in some times and places have talked about love of nature, and their love of the animals—JUST AS MANY OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER “RACES” of humans in various times and places surely have as well. Neither I nor Richard Reese have suggested otherwise. Meanwhile the Native American quotes you referred to remain some of my favorites.]]

    You wrote “So, first you declare that Native people caring for their land both in terms of reverence for the Earth overall, and their respect for all living things, once again, is a ‘myth’ and a ‘fantasy.'” [[I have never thought nor written such a ridiculous thing, and I find it disgusting that you publically claim that I have. YOU wrote that, not me, and then you attributed it to me, and you often use this argumentation tactic. Or does it amount not so much to an “argumentation tactic” as much as a simple failure to read and understand what others have written, both commenters and the people a commenter may have referred to, and a subsequent failure to ask for clarification when needed? (See my further comments regarding this below.) I feel sad that you work so hard to turn friends into enemies by insisting that they believe and say things that they do not believe and say.]]

    “You conclude this through questionable cosmologies derived from bones and rocks, while dismissing all real knowledge of their cultures, and all historical documentation about their far healthier and saner attitudes toward nature and all living things.” [[I do not know what to make of this comment. Apparently, you consider anthropology, archaeology, primatology, and sociology “questionable cosmologies”? Or do you consider the empirical processes of natural science a “questionable cosmology”—unless they bear on global warming, in which case they then becomes no longer a “questionable cosmology”? I do not begin to presume to know what you mean. What leads you to believe that either I or the anthropologists, archaeologists, primatologists, sociologists, and others who study various groups of humans “dismiss all real knowledge of their cultures, and all historical documentation”? Do you really, seriously believe that anthropologists and sociologists commonly do that? Do you really have such little knowledge and understanding of anthropology, archaeology, and sociology, and have such strong, emotional prejudice against those fields of study? Or do you just react with such strong, negative emotion if some of their findings do not support some of your favorite beliefs regarding your alleged racial superiority—while of course considering those researchers’ findings important, valid, and relevant when they do support your views?]]

    “But the best part of all of this, Bud, is how you conclude that clueless post of yours with a new concept that we all might want to think about to get ourselves out of the doom of our own choices: animalness. The Indians just called it seeing reality. They still do. And it’s so painful, funny, enraging, tragic, ironic, stupefying that now that the world is dying, you are adopting their views of thousands of years and calling them your own.” [[News flash, oldgrowthforest: Native Americans do NOT have a monopoly on understanding, accepting, and telling others about our animal nature embedded ecologically on Earth as you seem to wish so strongly to believe. They never did have such a monopoly, and never will. Furthermore, it does not demean you in particular, nor Native Americans more generally in any way, as you seem to think it does, for other people such as Richard Reese and me to point to our animal nature and to our ecological plight as I have done many, many times in many different contexts throughout my life. (I have my undergraduate degree in ecology.) Our doing that does NOT make us some kind of enemy of Native Americans as you and some others here appear strongly to believe and obviously wish to encourage others to believe. It makes us friends and allies. I find your very strongly biased “negative sentiment override”, as famous marriage researcher John Gottman at the University of Washington terms it, fascinating, frustrating, tragic, and sad. Needless to say, that kind of strong, negative bias with which a person immediately jumps to negative conclusions about neutral or positive interactions does not predict healthy, productive relationships in general any more than it predicts a healthy marriage.]]


    May 14th, 2016 at 6:24 pm you wrote: “No, nemesis. I’m doing my best to insult and humiliate apnea because I’m really sick of the racism of the myth of the noble savage being pushed here repeatedly by eggheads with the thinking ability of skinheads, only with a better vocabulary.” [[Thanks for your clearly stated agenda “to insult and humiliate” others here, as well as helping to emphasize the extent to which this site supports and encourages such behavior by freely allowing it without even moderator comment, much less badly needed moderator censorship of such an agenda abusively to insult and humiliate others. You feel “sick of the racism of the myth of the noble savage being pushed here repeatedly”? Even assuming that the myth of peaceful, ecologically astute, early humans qualified as “racist”—which it clearly does NOT—like LWA you reason that someone making a racist, bullying, or ad hominem comment gives you license to do the same? Did you learn that value, that social rule, from LWA, did he learn it from you, or did you both learn it independently? Do some Native American cultures teach that value? Happily, most people I know do not hold such a value that “two wrongs make a right”, though obviously many people here do and the commenting format with its lack of enforced rules accepts and encourages it.]]


    May 15th, 2016 at 11:20 pm you wrote “I also notice, Lidia, that in removing context, you ignore my overarching point regarding the prolonged – 167-year – use, even by commenters here, of the term “myth of the noble savage,” a clear declaration of racial inferiority on the part of Native Americans, and the promotion of genocide and land theft. It’s rather amazing how that part seems to have slipped by you.” [[On 10/29/14 I wrote to you: “By the way, like Shep and many others, I also hate the term ‘savage’, which originated several hundred years ago. Most authors I know of use that term only in referring to the titles of and terms used in old papers and books, and as quotes from them. People also often use ‘primitive’ with negative connotations; when I use it, I use it in a non-judgmental, neutral sense.” Archaeologist at Harvard and director of collections at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Steven LeBlanc, titled his wonderful 2003 book Constant Battles, The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage. If you had bothered to read the book beyond just the title, and if you read the things I have written related to it, you would know that, like me, he does NOT consider early humans “savages”, as you continue to insist while also insisting that he and I therefore qualify as “racists”. In his title he referred to much earlier, out of date uses of the term and his using the term in that way does NOT suggest, as you so persistently and loudly insist, that he or I think in those negative terms. You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that neither I nor Steven LeBlanc, nor any competent archaeologist, anthropologist, primatologist, or sociologist that I know of today, thinks of early humans as either “savages” or “primitive” (in the negative sense of that word). Yet you continue to argue emotionally as though we DO, and attack us for these nonexistent beliefs and values that you continue wrongly to attribute to us. Please help me to understand what you wish to accomplish with this profoundly inappropriate, very badly misplaced, blatantly ignorant, disrespectful, and abusive argumentation? Does someone need to sue you for libel in order for you to “get” that publically writing such obviously slanderous statements does not fly?]]


    May 11th, 2016 at 5:49 pm you wrote: “Newsflash from Bud: White dude raised in Utah has issues with native people.”

    Would you kindly explain what you intend this to mean? As with some of oldgrowthforest’s comments, I confess that I have no idea at all what it means. I find it extremely confusing, as I expect anyone else reading it does as well, other than your clearly stated claim that I supposedly “have issues with native people”, which I do not. For one thing, I don’t know whether I qualify as a “white dude”. Born in North Carolina, I am part Cherokee. Does that make me “white” or “Indian”? Second, I did not get “raised in Utah”. I have only driven through the state a few times. Third, I do not “have issues with native people”. Largely based on my understanding of biology in general, and zoology in particular, for most of my life I have considered the concept of “race” fundamentally useless and much more often than not, extremely hurtful, as well demonstrated by much commenting here. I do not think in racial, “Native vs. white people” terms, as you and some others here obviously insist on doing. Unlike you, I do not consider any group of humans, whether a “race” or not, superior to another group in any general way regarding human characteristics common among all of us.


    May 12th, 2016 at 9:27 am you wrote: “About racists like Bud Nye et al:”

    As I have asked oldgrowthforest above, please provide me and other readers here with examples in which I have supposedly: (1) made statements suggesting that I consider one race superior to others, (2) made statements suggesting that I have written or otherwise behaved with racial intolerance, and/or (3) I made discriminatory statements on the basis of race or religion. If you cannot or will not provide these examples, please apologize to me for making the unfounded statement referring to me as a “racist”.


    Just as others have in the past, I feel surprised that Guy and/or his moderators do not proactively call for an apology or at least insist that they consider this kind of completely unwarranted, baseless personal attacking unacceptable here at NBL. Note the “ad hominem attack club” that quickly, spontaneously formed here with at least three different commenters supporting each other as they made their various bullying, ad hominem attacks, creating the crystal clear message that “If you challenge our favorite, cherished beliefs in any way, we will do our best to personally attack you, shame you, hurt you emotionally, and ‘kill’ you as a messenger.”

    Does not anyone here have any idea of the destructive effects that this kind of abusive behavior usually has on both individual commenters and on the general social milieu of this or any other comment site? Does not anyone here have the ability to discuss the pros and cons of various ideas and evidence respectfully, whether they agree or disagree, and to discourage commenters from turning to emotionally abusive, personal attacks? Why does this site not have clearly stated rules that require respectful interactions in order to participate—and effective enforcement of those rules? A moderator could quickly and easily write to a commenter “Please rewrite your comment without the ad hominem content (or otherwise abusive content), if you wish us to post it.” (I understand that a moderator does read every comment posted.) Quick, easy, simple, obvious, and effective. Even so, this seems “too hard to do here”. I guess actual enforcement of rules that require respectful interactions requires an anarchically unacceptable “ruler”. While many people justifiably feel great anger, disgust, shame, fear, surprise, sadness, and so on regarding our horrific, dying planet predicament, and in this severely disconnected and alienated society they need an outlet to express their emotions, they need a HEALTHY outlet to express their ADAPTIVE, PRIMARY emotions (especially adaptive anger and shame) with acceptance and validation of those emotions. They do NOT need an unhealthy outlet that encourages expressing maladaptive primary and secondary emotions that lead to abusively, personally attacking others—as this largely unmoderated site at least allows, if it does not often encourage.

    I wonder: How much financial and other support has Guy lost over the years directly because of the near completely out-of-control, emotionally and otherwise abusive, ad hominem attacking that has so often occurred here, sometimes modeled by Guy himself? (I expect a tragically large amount.) How many commenters have stopped commenting here directly because of the essentially out-of-control verbal abuse that so often occurs? (Very large numbers, certainly.) How many more years will this experiment in verbally abusive anarchism continue? (Until this insane civilization collapses?) Despite these and other obvious, severe weaknesses, problems, and failures, apparently we need to continue an experiment to demonstrate that an example of everyday no ruler anarchy supposedly works well. Meanwhile it seems clear to many people that such a lack of rules, and lack of appropriate enforcement of them, obviously does not work well at all.

    If anarchy works so “well” at this commenting site where what people do mainly involves merely discussing abstract ideas using words about words about words, with some people sometimes referring to confirmable evidence in the world—while most, continuing various kinds of extremely popular, eons-old religious and spiritual beliefs, strongly deny any need for any such allegedly awful natural scientific processes—what does this suggest about how well it would supposedly work in real-life situations involving food and fuel energy—with people’s lives at stake, not just their abstract, symbolic ideas? “Not very well at all” probably serves as a gross understatement, I think. In most small early human groups for about 200,000 years, much more often than not all over Earth their frequently supposed “anarchy” probably consisted mainly of different variations on the theme of: “Break the group’s rules and we will promptly kill you” with little or no spoken language involved. I wonder: given our experiences with it here at NBL, does anyone want their local hospital or fire department to work based on no ruler anarchy principles? On the other hand, the no ruler principle definitely does work well at tending to select over time for commenters who often practice verbally abusive communication styles and habits. But then, perhaps this commenting site exists largely to perform exactly that function? To attract and give license to commenters who often practice verbally abusive communication styles and habits as a way to maximize both horizontal and vertical hostility, thus helping to bring civilization down ASAP? I do not presume to know.


    May 17th, 2016 at 8:37 pm you wrote “I didn’t start the noble savage stuff, Bud did. I want to show it for the truth of what it is, and it is very, very, ugly. It is racist-genocide ugly.” and “On the other hand, Bud and Apneaman, spout their pro-genocide MoTNS…”

    Okay. I have had enough of this disgusting, abusive, anarchist, personal attacking insanity. Oldgrowthforest, I demand an immediate apology from you for this publically made, libelous, completely out of touch with reality, ad hominem attack lie in which you claim that I, as well as Apneaman, archaeologist Steven LeBlanc, author of Constant Battles, The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage, 2003, and many other archaeologists, anthropologists, primatologists, and others who do not agree with the romantic idea of the peaceful, noble, ecologically astute early humans, support the genocide of indigenous peoples. If you do not promptly apologize for this outrageous, vicious claim regarding us, I will demand a public explanation from Guy regarding why he does not also demand this apology from you, or ban you from commenting further at this site for not making the apology. Keep it up, oldgrowthforest, and I will seriously consider seeking legal advice on how best to protect myself from your persistent (for years), mean-spirited, vicious, libelous, outrageously disrespectful, emotionally abusive ad hominem attacks.

  • Guy your best yet and I really liked the “be the dog” line.

  • I was clear in my post, Bud. You cry that you are certain that people will respond with ad hominem attacks to your latest racist guru, when your opening statement is itself a pre-emptive ad hominem attack on anyone who disagrees with what you are about to write. That’s what I meant by “projection.” It’s right there in the words themselves.

    I have posted the Dickens quotation previously, and I did notice that you avoided the specific words, “myth” and “noble savage.” No doubt it’s because even you can see the obvious racism once it is laid out there. So you creatively used different words like “golden age” and making it about geography and not culture or race – the western hemisphere, etc.

    So, now that the words of the myth of the noble savage and their use and intent are shown in all their psychopathic glory, you try to swap the specific terms, and yet still argue the same racist argument.

    It’s so easy to be confused. I don’t have enough respect for you, Bud, to continue anymore. I’ve made my points, and anyone who wants to can accept or reject them. Or, they can think that you are correct and take guidance from your illustrious posts. Whatever.

  • I’d just like to unveil, that I simply IGNORE any racist and any shitty Nazi/Empire collective guilt claims ect here at NBL now :-) For instance, I just scrolled over the comment of Bud Nye now. And what shall I say? It feels GOOD, to use my FREE WILL to scroll with a neat little movement of my middle finga over such comments, gnahahaha 3:-)


    I really enjoyed your article at your blog, titled “The Psychology of the Notion of Collective Guilt”. Excellent!

  • mod note

    Bud ~ please read the following link very carefully:

    “I demand an immediate apology from you for this publically made, libelous…”

    the statements about racism on both sides of this debate on NBL clearly fall into the realm of opinion, not verifiable fact. your threat of legal action against ogf has no merit, that I can see, on the basis of defamation law. you can of course seek your own legal advice, but you would be wasting your time and money, I can assure you.

    I am not presently aware of any statements between you and ogf, or anyone else in this debate about racism, that would possibly constitute “a false statement of fact.” keep in mind, this means provably false. if I do become aware of any such possible statements, I will take the required moderator action, as I and/or the NBL moderation team would agree appropriate.

    from the link:

    “What is a statement of verifiable fact?

    A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse.”

    I think this is very clear.

    in the meantime, a refresher for all:

    This blog is about views, ideas and information relevant to near term human extinction.

    Since you may be unfamiliar, here are the house rules:

    0. two comments max, per day, in the current thread. unlimited posts allowed in the basement (previous) threads. all posts, wherever they are, shall follow the remaining three rules.

    1. no libel. learn the law if you need to.

    2. no attacks on classes of people, e.g. racism, antisemitism, misogyny.

    3. keep focused on ideas as much as possible, not the people who hold the ideas.

    Interpretation and enforcement of the rules is at the discretion of the moderators.

    ~ mo

  • I didn’t read anything beyond what I responded to, Nemesis. I have blinked past Bud’s and other persons’ posts for years. He’s been opening posts with his MoTNS drivel for years, and years, creating new ways of saying the same thing – how inferior all of us are for not agreeing with him. Every once in a while I pick up that gauntlet, just because.

  • .
    Yes, I must admit I scrolled past Bud’s comment as well. It didn’t seem addressed to me anyway. Since it no doubt had lot’s in there about ad hominem attacks, I will post something about that, in case it can help clear up Bud’s confusion about that term.

    Consider these two statements …

    That was an idiotic theory you just espoused there.

    You are an idiot.

    Can you spot the difference there Bud?

    Seriously? Bud’s going to sue people now? Maybe I should have read his comment, it sounds like it was entertaining. Oh well, too late now.

    It’s quite hot here today for mid May. Very unusual indeed.

  • .
    Ok, I went back and read a tiny bit from just the end of Bud’s comment.

    It sounded pretty verbally abusive.

  • For what it’s worth, I’m tired of every ones “opinions”, including my own.
    I would like to see the comments here include links to other sites and subjects related to NTE,personal observations of members local conditions, brief insights into tribe members lives and support and commiserions for the predicament we find ourselves in.
    Now I can be as obnoxious as anyone at times,you may have noticed, but I try not to inflict it on others too often.
    I simply hate to think how bad it’s going to get, dealing with the coming breakdown and all those idiots out there;based on the reactions of some here.
    I doubt any opinions expressed on these pages will actually change anyone’s attitude or preconceptions, so why not stick to observation and helpful insight, if you have any.

  • @ Bud Nye
    All I see from you is “me, me,1 me, I, I, I, me, me.” You make the comments section unreadable, and I have serious doubts about your sanity. If Guy loses readers, it’s because of your unending drivel.

  • Love In The Misanthropocene

    I don’t know what racist means because everybody is racist.

    Everybody prefers one race over another.

    Everybody likes one race over another.

    Some hate one race or another.

    To Guy, feel free to answer to critics in comments here:

    From Abrupt Climate Change to Climate Collapse * Guy McPherson Present… from collapse

    I hate all races.

  • @Robert Callaghan

    “Everybody, everybody, everybody…” I hear such stupid claims all my life, mostly from the Empire slave-sheeples without any free will or upright walking. What does such a statement teach? What’s in such a claim? Absolutely nothing. You don’t know “everybody” on this planet. You know just a tiny, tiny fraction of 7.3 billion people. “Everybody is a racist”. Such a claim is just stupid, insane. “Everybody prefers one race over another” is another stupid claim. I am no racist and I don’t prefer any race over any other race. But you claim, that I am a racist too, when you claim “Everybody is a racist”, so you claim SHIT about ME- man, I don’t like that at all. Just get yourself together and think again, before you send any comment with any shitty claims about ME.

    Thank you.

  • oldgrowthforest, I’m just impressed that you got through Bud’s 4,000 word screed up there.

    Also, to clarify what an ad hominem attack is, I believe it’s when you attack someone personally in an attempt to counter their argument, when in reality the person has nothing to do with the veracity of their argument. Calling someone an asshole isn’t really an ad hominem attack, but saying “I know global warming isn’t real because you’re a fucking asshole” is. True?

    Anyway, I think someone posted this before, but if you didn’t watch it, you should. Hilarious.

  • I pulled a couple of Columbian lawn jockeys out of a ditch today in their “see the USA in your Chevrolet 4WD (that was not working) pick up truck today. If Trump deports all the illegal aliens (It’s no fun being an illegal alien), then who is going to mow the Baroness’ estate? I accepted *no* remuneration for my efforts.

    Willie Nelson – Mama’s Don’t Let Your Babies

  • Please note: This comment is only for those interested in birds.

    We frequently see the Emerald Dove here.They prefer areas of denser vegetation,and we are towards the western edge of their distributional range,although they can also be found a bit west of here along creeks
    where suitable habitat exists.
    We are on the eastern edge of the dis.range for the Squatter Pigeon,which prefers woodland and more open forest.The rainfall decreases quite quickly towards the west from here,and only about 1.5 km west from here,we often see the Squatter Pigeon. The name refers to their habit of remaining still if they see a potential predator approaching,and relying on their camouflaging plumage to enable them to escape detection. They will fly only at the last moment,with an explosive take off,which can be surprising and momentarily alarming when several fly from two or three metres away from among grass tussocks.
    There is a small open area in front of the cabin here,and we
    have very rarely (about twice in 39 years) seen a couple there.
    A couple of

    weeks ago an amazing event occurred. A flock must have been flying overhead and landed to investigate the small open area I mentioned.
    I looked up from the chair inside here,and there were seven Squatter
    Pigeons walking down the path towards the cabin. Everything was quiet,and they were moving about,quietly cooing to each other and pecking grass seeds.I was amazed to see them there,but then they continued down the path,and hopped onto the stone verandah,which is only about 16 cm. above the surrounding ground,and were walking to and fro
    on the verandah. Then one came through the open door and walked about
    60 cm into the cabin,only about three metres from where I was sitting motionless. It then went back to the verandah,and about ten seconds
    later something frightened them,(I think it was a gust of wind moving
    some leaves) and the flock flew back up the path and landed about nine metres away,and then continued walking away.The whole event was quite amazing.
    A few days later,Jo and I were sitting here,and I heard the quiet
    calls of the Squatter Pigeon again. Again I looked up,and this time there were two pigeons,walking around a few metres in front of the cabin.Jo had the camera next to her,and took a couple of photos.
    If you are interested in seeing photos of both of those Pigeons,both of which have beautiful plumage and markings,there are images on google,
    or I will include a link if you want to see the images which Jo took.
    I am not sure which image will appear on the link below. The most recent image is of a carpet python.You will have to click back to see the Pigeons.Hopefully the image will be of the Emerald Dove,and the Squatter
    pigeon image is a couple of clicks back.

  • Obituaries & In Memoriam


    “NOLAND, Mary Anne Alfriend. Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68. Born in Danville, Va., Mary Anne was a graduate of Douglas Freeman High School (1966) and the University of Virginia School of Nursing (1970). A faithful child of God, Mary Anne devoted her life to sharing the love she received from Christ with all whose lives she touched as a wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister, friend and nurse. Mary Anne was predeceased by her father, Kyle T. Alfriend Jr. and Esther G. Alfriend of Richmond. She is survived by her husband, Jim; sister, Esther; and brothers, Terry (Bonnie) and Mac (Carole). She was a mother to three sons, Jake (Stormy), Josh (Amy) and David (Katie); and she was “Grammy” to 10 beloved grandchildren. A visitation will be held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, at Trinity United Methodist Church, 903 Forest Ave., in Henrico. A memorial service will be held on Wednesday, May 18, 1 p.m., with a reception to follow, also at Trinity UMC. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions can be made to CARITAS, P.O. Box 25790, Richmond, Va. 23260 (”

  • 44south.

    “I would like to see the comments here include links to other sites and subjects related to NTE,personal observations of members local conditions, brief insights into tribe members lives and support and commiserions for the predicament we find ourselves
    I like your whole comment. I too, like to see pertinent info related to climate…. and some toward the, economic, social consequences…..

  • Hothouse Earth?

    If life emerges on a planet it only rarely evolves quickly enough to regulate greenhouse gasses and albedo, thereby maintaining surface temperatures compatible with liquid water and habitability. Such a Gaian bottleneck suggests that. 1. extinction is the cosmic default for most life that has ever emerged on the surfaces of our rocky planets in the Universe. and 2. rocky planets need to be inhabited to remain habitable.

    James Lovelock Explains Gaia Hypothesis on The Sacred Balance (TV) – YouTube

    Life has an uphill task terraforming the planet with the Gaia affect and can be eliminated by all sorts of accidents.

    So, Gaia on Planet Earth got off and worked through the above vulnerable bottleneck. But she produced a rogue species which destroyed that sacred balance and extinction will be the outcome.

  • Wanda Harding and 44South:

    You make awesome points about the posts here. And thanks so much for calling us a tribe, if I understood you correctly. Even though we don’t have the qualities of a typically defined tribe, we do share some beliefs or we wouldn’t all be here.

    As far as links, here’s one to a relevant website that I, and probably others here, might relate to:

    With regard to local climate conditions, I live in southern CA. Conditions here are dryyyyy. El Nino didn’t deliver the deluge of water that the ’98 El Nino did. It was due to the “ridiculously resilient ridge,” which someone here pointed out to me when I called it “a giant wall of heat.”

    Not that you were saying this exactly, but we do spend a lot of time bickering here, perhaps because it’s much easier than facing the horrific reality before us? There have been people here who have posted suicide notes- literal suicide notes- and the conversation just goes on like nothing happened. When I first came on here, it horrified me. Then I became accustomed to that vibe. I applied my experience with social justice groups- you know the hippie leftist people who lunge for each other’s throats every chance they get? Anyone see “I Heart Huckabees?” That’s what my local anti-war, pro-peace groups were like. Then again, it is Los Angeles…

    At some point I realized that all of it is just about fear and pain. So sometimes I just post music videos because they convey how much of that I’m feeling. They don’t have anything to do with NTHE per se. Neither does the video below. Just has to do with the human condition. Anyway, ugh. This concludes another self-indulgent post from another self-indulgent doomer. Why are you still reading?!?!?!

  • In the hope of not being deleted I am reposting a comment I made on Robert Scribbler’s site whcih has been deleted twice. If there’s one thing I hate more than climate change deniers it is the sort of person who deletes a reasoned post like this becasue he’s got a sweet and blind spot for Hillary Clinton and fondly imagines he is going to do a damn thing to save this planet from destruction. If you think it’s not reasonable I would be happy to discuss things.

    “Let me give my (non-American) perspective on the presidential race.

    The chief danger is that we may not het to die from climate change because we will get to die from nuclear war first. If you think I’m exaggerating just consider that there is a military build-up on Russia’s borders which has not been seen since 1941. This is supposedly due to Putin’s aggression, even though the Russians have withdrawn from Central Europe and, contrary to the Bush 41-Gorbachev Agreement, NATO has expanded right up to the western borders of Russia itself, taking in parts of the former Soviet Union.

    Bush 43 tore up the ABM Treaty. The deployment of intermediate range nuclear missiles in Romania complete with ribbon cutting ceremony this week seems to me to be an abrogation of the INF Treaty of 1987. That was signed because the risks from non-strategic nukes in Europe were so great that this category of weapons had to be scrapped. Now they are back.

    Trump may be insincere but he is the only one who is at least talking of negotiating with Moscow. Everyone else is just in on the march to war.

    If you ever read the literature of the Puritans you will frequently come across the phrase “practical atheists.” This was used to describe people who were outwardly Christians but in all other respects were acting as the heathen.

    From that perspective Hillary is a practical denier. She talks better than Trump but it is doubtful that if elected she would take on the interests of the fossil fuel companies.

    I have four grandchildren under 11 and would be happy to be proved wrong.”

  • Thin-skinned, lacking enough sense to know what will work with whom, substituting long-windedness for clarity and effectiveness, and unaware that traits and attitudes can be manifest “between the lines” without explicit, overt statement.

  • Does anyone need any more proof that most people live in a world of delusion? This article is by an Emeritus professor and a Chief Research scientist. The Reefs are dying now ,at 400ppm atmospheric CO2,rising by at least 3ppm per year. 7.4 billion people relying on fossil fuel burning to exist. We have ZERO chance of being able to save the reefs. No one in the comments section points this out.

  • @Tsar Nicholas:

    You are dead on about Robert Scribbler. He is an exceptional science writer, but when it comes to politics he is delusional.

    Hillary had all of Bill Clinton’s term to do something about global warming. Instead, crickets.

    Hilary had all of Obama’s term to do something about global warming. Instead, Honduras, Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen. I’m pretty confident that what’s going on in Venezuela and Brazil right now will also prove to have US deep state roots. Add to that working with the Saudis to collapse the price of oil in order to destabilize Russia, Iran and Venezuela (only worked on the last).

    If you are truly against AGW, you absolutely cannot be for war, empire, neoliberalism and globalism. There are many reasons for this, but at its simplest, these things all result in ever increasing energy use and thereby add to civilization’s heat engine. If you take a stand against AGW, obviously, you want less mechanized, industrialized, transported, petroleum-based everything, not to mention less debt.

    Yes, Trump is an AGW denialist. But so what? Even if something could be done to make a difference, Hillary wouldn’t—indeed couldn’t—do it. She’s firmly in the war and neoliberalism camp.

    Robert Scribbler is absolutely delusional that there is any practical difference between the two on AGW issues. For a politician to both endorse empire and neoliberalism on the one hand and advocate fighting AGW on the other is like a guy who says he’s on a diet but keeps eating jelly donuts. The two don’t fit together.

    Take Al Gore. Made the movie, sounded the alarm, got the Nobel Peace Prize … and yet, he’s pro NAFTA and globalization.

    Just one of the things NAFTA did was to enrich giant, subsidized, mechanized, American petroleum-based agriculture while displacing millions of Mexican small farmers. Obviously, if you believe in AGW and truly understand its implications, then you want less subsidized, mechanized, petroleum-based everything, and more locally-based self-sufficient communities. Keep the millions of small Mexican peasant farmers doing their thing. Smaller carbon footprint and all that.

    Al Gore is our paradigm useless liberal. Does he actually not see that globalization and preventing AGW are absolutely incompatible? Does he engage in some kind of Orwellian double-think so he can hold two sets of contradictory beliefs at once? Is he a giggling psychopath who just doesn’t care?

    I think you’ll find that most of the Democrats in Congress have similar cognitive problems, but actually diagnosing the specific dysfunction is not so easy.

    One thing is certain, though: the end result of the policies they adopt are the same. That is, no logical and consistent efforts are made to address AGW (even if the physical chemistry still had enough wiggle room), since their commitment to war, empire, neoliberalism, and globalism take precedence.

    So yeah, Trump is an AGW denier, but at the same time, Hillary’s policies are effectively no different. We might term her, Gore, Obama, and the like to be faux-believers of AGW.

    Where does that leave us in regard to Robert Scribbler? He obviously understands the science very well. The nature of his cognitive dysfunction is a puzzlement to me. Part of it may be that he simply doesn’t understand that civilization is heat engine, and anyone dedicated to more activity rather than less can only add to the problem.

  • Robin, that sums it up well… at some point, such comments that you allude to become humor!


    Nemesis, LWA, OGF, you know where my sympathies lie… but then sympathy is just a state of mind. So it must not be real? :)


    Lidia said: “Like Lego blocks, all cultures are expressions of the same basic combination of ingredients, and there aren’t really great “differences in history”.”

    From a materialistic standpoint, that would be true – we all share the same set of basic building blocks, the same DNA. But from a non-physical standpoint, metaphysical, if you will, the differences can vary widely. Cultures are based on stories and stories can be very different. The two viewpoints “all people are similar everywhere and throughout history” and “cultures vary greatly across time and space” owe their fundamental difference to fundamentally different worldviews. The former comes from a mostly material, deterministic stochastic worldview, the worldview of Physics, of Science, really the worldview of modernity. This is what gets taught in schools and colleges and popularized on film and in print. Billions of civilized people are steeped in this worldview. The other worldview is a synthesis of the physical and metaphysical/intuitive (I can imagine the material purists squirming at the mention of those words, but that’s just a natural reaction given their belief systems). The right brain needs to be functioning halfway decently for one to accept that reality is made up of more than what we perceive through the five senses. Please don’t take this the wrong way. Most people these days have a dominant left brain. I have lived most of my life this way. Modern culture programs us to shut down our intuitive faculties, the divine feminine within us all, the care, nurturing and compassion that are the counterpart to a well-functioning left brain that brings logical rigor, precision and linear thought to our experience navigating life.

    The divine feminine has an aspect to it that encourages listening. Those who are balanced are good listeners. Obviously, our culture hasn’t been listening to those other cultures who have been warning it (the Kogi of Columbia, for instance). Culturally, we are deficient in the divine feminine. This goes hand in hand with patriarchy and aggression, two defining hallmarks of civilization. When we don’t listen, we can’t have effective communication.

    Lidia said: “Wildly differing stories (let’s say Babylonians vs. Greeks vs. Aztecs vs. Hindus..) => same outcome.”

    Those are all examples of tribes gone awry in different places and different times. It’s not like human beings have lived on the planet for 200,000 years without tribes here and there going out of balance with their land and with surrounding tribes now and then. The element of psychopathy has always existed but tribes have generally done a good job of managing the “wetiko” elements among them. When the immune system is overwhelmed for whatever reasons, normal tissue becomes cancerous and begins to spread. Certain tribes have definitely met this fate all over the world and all through history, but as long as surrounding tribes are listening to what’s going on next door, the menace is contained. The Babylonians, Greeks, Aztecs, and the so-called high civilizations of India and China are to varying degrees, tribes gone out of control and out of balance, ultimately ending up conquering surrounding tribes to one extent or another. These are all examples of civilizations. With those examples, we’re not talking about tribes that have been living in balance while all of this was going on. And there are thousands of them (Native Americans being good examples). There are still hundreds if not thousands of them all over the world. But who cares! We paint them all with the same broad brush. Our inability to make this distinction creates all manner of confusion. Who are we? The descendants of the tribes that went cancerous and the descendants of all the other tribes that they in turn have managed to conquer, assimilate and brainwash. That’s most of us here. We look through warped lenses, ones of our own making and fail to understand other cultures and their stories. We call our stories facts. We reduce our reality to physical reality and get tangled up in theories of how it was always going to happen, no matter what, because that’s just how Thermodynamics works. We forget that our ancestors were all indigenous to one area or another for thousands of years, often living in tribes. We have lost connection to that past. This is another major distinction between civilizations and indigenous peoples – the former have no respect for ancestors and the past… they are future-obsessed. The latter have deep respect and reverence for ancestors for it is they who have diligently passed on all the knowledge of the world around them down the generations.

    No matter how many times we discuss these issues, they keep coming up. No wonder though. After all, our culture is marked by a deficiency of the divine feminine. We have forgotten how to listen.

    Lidia said: “You can fix your sights on some minority who reject modern conveniences when offered, but I believe those are the exceptions which prove the rule.”

    Those are the rule, not the exceptions. Balance and health are the rule. Imbalance and cancer are exceptions. Let’s not confuse the two lest it make a good example of how biased we get looking at our past from our own deranged times.

    Lidia said: “Once you get into large groups, you need stored surpluses, politics, priesthoods, military, and all that crap. It seems you would like “native” cultures to be recognized as superior largely because they had the luxury of dealing with far fewer people.

    You wouldn’t get into large groups if you’re not already out of balance – out of balance in physical terms as well as non-physical (stories, listening ability, rituals, etc.). Unless the immune system is already compromised, a tissue doesn’t grow out of balance. Luxury of dealing with far fewer people? As if they just got lucky with that one for 200,000 years. This is a good example of how a stochastic interpretation works… they “somehow” didn’t manage to exploit all their resources!

    They had far fewer people because they worked toward it, generation after generation, constantly mindful of their impact on their lands. Tribes generally extracted less than 1% of the energy flow in their habitat. They could easily have extracted more, killed more Salmon and hunted more bison. But they didn’t. On purpose. It was who they were. They were in service to their land. And to their fellow species. This is the height of human intelligence – to realize that man is blessed with a higher intelligence because it’s needed to serve and give. That’s the gift our species brings to bear on this planet. The ability to discern patterns and apply our highly evolved brain to maintain balance and harmony and help other species thrive. An example of such application of higher intelligence is deliberate and controlled burns of hillsides every so often to cleanse and nurture habitat. The Pomo Indians have done this for 12,000 years in Northern California. Another example of such an application of higher intelligence is the use of herbs and other natural methods of birth control to keep their numbers in balance with their land… something civilization fails at.

    Nothing random about it. Indigenous people were conscious and mindful and ever-attentive. They still are where ever they live.

    Lidia said: “I would be very interested to hear from a “native” elder how it is that we are to continue to feed and otherwise manage 8 billion humans (and their exponentially-growing offspring) without resorting to means all of us here know and decry as artificial and overly-exploitative.”

    This is just too funny :) You want to hear from a native elder how to feed 8 Billion people? NOW? If we were listening to them the last few hundred years, we wouldn’t have had 8 billion people on a nearly dead planet.

    It’s OK… it’s a sign of cancer. We went cancerous and we didn’t listen. We are just picking up the pieces now to understand where we goofed up.

    Lidia said: “What I *do* perceive is that you, Satish, and others reserve and perpetuate a certain racist distinction (dare I say, “nobility”?) for non-white cultures. Your racist objections to racism seem very mixed-up to me /strikethrough are completely understandable.”

    It’s about civilization vs. indigenous/first nations/native/tribal peoples. Civilization has erupted in many places on the planet at different times. They have often gone away (like benign tumors that grow and grow but eventually disappear without hurting the host body) but this one is not going away (the one we’re part of, the one that has us brainwashed, the one that keeps us from gaining clarity on the situation, the one that says there’s nothing to learn from all of this, yes, this one didn’t disappear and it is killing the host. I don’t think it has anything to do with race. There are White indigenous people (Sami) that are as threatened as Black ones. And there are Black and Brown civilized peoples that are plundering the planet as much as White civilized peoples. Asian civilizations, European civilizations, African civilizations, they are all similar in that they have outgrown their habitats, turned cancerous and started expanding outward. I think European civilization is finishing up what the Chinese and Indians have started a long time ago. Not much to do with race or geography. That’s the general big picture. It doesn’t mean one cannot and should not look at specific periods in history or specific regions of the planet and comment upon the rapaciousness with which civilization has exterminated indigenous peoples. Especially when the oppression continues to this day. Calling it racism is an inability to comprehend this distinction. It doesn’t serve a purpose of clarification. It simply muddies the waters to bring in the usual stereotypes.

    Lidia said: “I think we are all just bozos here on this bus.'”

    Amen! The one thing I agree with you on. 100% :)

  • 17-year old addresses world delegates –

    This was 4 years ago. CO2 was still below 400 ppm. What has changed since then? CO2 is 407/408 ppm.

  • **We are just picking up the pieces now to understand where we goofed up.**

    IMHO, where we *goof up* is when we believe things aren’t as they are *suppose* to be and that nature needs our brain farts to *pick up the pieces.*

  • Psychedelics and Systems Change | Charles Eisenstein
    Psychedelics and Systems Change

    Originally published (in a modified form) on the MAPS Bulletin (Spring 2016)

    Many arguments for the legalization of cannabis and psychedelics draw on their relative harmlessness. Countering the rationale of prohibition, we can point out that compared to legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, psychedelics are extremely safe. Given statistics comparing the annual number of alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. (88,000) to the number of cannabis-related deaths (zero), the hysterical warnings of prohibitionists that legalization would destroy society as we know it seem ridiculous.

    In fact, the prohibitionists are correct. The legalization of cannabis, LSD, MDMA, psilocybin mushrooms, ayahuasca, and the other psychedelics would indeed mean the end of society as we know it. The threat that conservative political forces have identified is real. If these were just innocuous bourgeois playthings, “experiences” that one could consume on weekends to make life-as-usual a little more tolerable, then the guardians of the status quo would have little reason to prohibit them. They recognize, if only unconsciously, the revolutionary social and political potential these substances carry.

    Psychedelics can bestow expanded consciousness, perceptions, and ways of being that are incompatible with those that undergird our society. Psychedelics have the power to subvert the alienation, competition, anthropocentrism, linear ordering of time and space, standardization of commodities and social roles, and reduction of reality to a collection of things that propel the world-destroying machine of modern civilization. They disrupt the defining mythology of our civilization, the Story of Separation.

    The elements of the Story of Separation listed above also embed our economic system, which means that the spread of cannabis and psychedelics could have negative economic effects—that is, when we define economic benefit as the growth in monetized goods and services. They promise less consumption of goods and services, not more. The modern self, alienated from nature and community, has an endless craving to consume and possess, seeking to grow in compensation for the lost infinity of the interconnected, inter-existent, true self that psychedelics reveal.

    Beware, then, of arguments that legalization is good for the economy. It won’t be, but it will accelerate a transition toward a different kind of economy. The psychedelic experience reveals its lineaments: less quantity and more quality, fewer “services” and more relationships, fewer “goods” and more beauty, less competition and more community, less accumulation and more sharing, less work and more play, less extraction and more healing. This is utterly at odds with the present economic system.

    The present economic system compels and requires growth in order to function. Growth here means growth of goods and services exchanged for money; it means quantitative growth, growth in a measurable quantity. It is the external, collective correlate of the ever-expanding ego, the separate self. As we identify less with that self, conventional economic logic begins to break down. No longer does it make sense that we are fundamentally in competition with each other. No longer does it make sense for scarcity to be the foundational premise of economic life. No longer does it make sense that more for you should be less for me. No longer is security and control of resources the highest priority in making economic choices. Psychedelics thereby help reverse the centuries-old economic usurpation of human life, the mentality of the transaction that has encroached on human relations

    For the discrete and separate self in a universe of other, it is quite rational to treat everything outside oneself— animals, plants, water, minerals, and even other people—as instruments of one’s own utility. After all, if you are separate from me, then what happens to you need not affect me. What happens to the honeybees, to the frogs, to the coral reefs, to the rhinos and elephants, need not affect us. We just need to recruit sufficient energy and information to insulate ourselves from the blowback, to engineer new solutions to the problems caused by previous solutions. Nature becomes a collection of “resources,” and no longer a living intelligence. And that is just how our economy treats it.

    Clearly, this strategy is a recipe for ecocide, blind to interdependency and ignorant of any intelligence in the workings of the world. Yet it pervades our systems of technology, industry, money, medicine, education, and politics. Psychedelics, then, promise to change all of these.

    There is therefore something a little disingenuous in political arguments for legalization that seek to assure nervous politicians that nothing much will change besides savings on police, courts, and penitentiaries, and perhaps more effective psychiatric treatments. Come on folks, we all know better than that. Is any psychedelic activist devoting his or her precious time on earth to serve a slightly better version of the current regime of oppression and ecocide? For a long time, chastened by the counterreaction to the 60s awakening, we’ve hidden our hope and desire that “this could change everything” behind political delicacy and neutral academic language. The time for that is perhaps soon coming to an end. The risk of assurances like, “Don’t worry, no dramatic social changes will happen” is that we implicitly affirm that such social changes are to be avoided; that things as they are are acceptable.

    The revolutionary potential of psychedelics lies first and foremost in their power to reveal the Story of Separation as nothing but that:, a story. When that happens, nothing built on that story makes sense any more. Yet there seems to be a problem translating that realization into systemic change. Fifty years after the psychedelic revolution of the 1960s, our systems of money, politics, imperialism, and ecological destruction seem more powerful than ever. The world that psychedelics vitiate trundles onward, despite declarations that they would change everything. Here’s Alan Watts, making a similar point to the one I’ve been making:

    Mystical experiences often result in attitudes that threaten the authority not only of established churches, but also of secular society. Unafraid of death and deficient in worldly ambition, those who have undergone mystical experiences are impervious to threats and promises….Use of psychedelics in the United States by a literate bourgeoisie means that an important segment of the population is indifferent to society’s traditional rewards and sanctions.

    One can hardly read these words, written in 1968, without a twinge of cynicism. Superficially, at least, Watts’ proclamation seems to have been overly optimistic. Looking at the number of hippies who went on to become lawyers and accountants, it is clear that a mystical experience does not necessarily render one impervious to “society’s traditional rewards and sanctions.” The experience invites us out of the story-of-self and the story-of-the-world that we’d taken for reality itself, but there has been no firmly established new story to greet us. We emerge from the experience surrounded by the infrastructure of the old story. The apparatus of modernity shouts that story at us from every quarter. No wonder vivid mystical realizations gradually fade: into principles one must strive hard to remember and practice; into memories of another realm seemingly sundered from our own; finally into a formless ennui that mutes every ambition and punctuates every accomplishment with a question mark.

    Why does this happen? One might cite a psychospiritual explanation: that we are flown to a place that eventually we must reach on foot; that we need to experience the territory in between, and thereby rework the habits and heal the wounds that maintain the inertia of who-we-were. Yes, but there is an equally important outer explanation that, we shall see, mirrors the inner: No experience can magically extricate anyone from the matrix of institutions that scaffold our society. We come back from the trip into the same economic system, the same physical surroundings, the same social pressures as before. The Story of Separation has enormous inertia. Its forms surround us and pull us relentlessly toward conformity, however unreal and unworthy of our wholehearted participation they may seem.

    In other words, a mystical experience may invite you to quit your job, but even those who have the courage to do it usually face the reality that our economy does not reward the modes of creativity that draw them. I know I am generalizing here, but no one can deny that generally speaking, there is more money to be made by destroying wetlands to build ports than in striving to protect them; more money marketing product than rebuilding community. Leaving the old, there is not usually a “new story” to greet us with ready-made positions, livelihood, and social identity.

    Yet Alan Watts was not wrong. It is just that in the psychedelic moment of the 1960s, we underestimated the robustness of the edifice of civilization and could not foresee the trajectory of the transition process. Perhaps there are mystical experiences that immediately and irrevocably change ones life and disintegrate its structures. More often though, the experience goes underground, working us from the inside, hollowing out the psychic infrastructure of the old normal. Its forms remain for a time, but they become more and more fragile.

    The same hollowing out is happening on the collective level, as the attitudes that informed prohibition seem increasingly archaic. Listening to politicians, one gets the sense that a great majority of them personally disagree with the drug war, but must espouse the opposite opinion in public for fear of being devoured by the media and other politicians—who themselves privately oppose the drug war too but join in the feeding frenzy so as not to become victims themselves. Not a happy commentary on human nature, but we can take solace from the implication that the ideological core of drug prohibition is decaying. The outward structures of prohibition are a rapidly thinning shell.

    And it’s not just the drug war. Our leaders seem to lack the deep, unquestioning faith in the project of civilization and all its accompanying narratives that was nearly universal a generation or two ago. The tropes of that era seem archaic today: the onward march of science, bringing democracy to the world, the conquest of nature, better living through chemistry, the wonders of atomic energy, higher, faster, better, new and improved. Even the boisterous flag-waving of the political right seems more an identity statement than an abiding patriotism. Without real conviction, no wonder politics has become largely a matter of image, spin, optics, and messaging.

    Our leaders no longer believe their own ideology, if they have one. Their public statements and private convictions are irredeemably opposed; everyone is trapped in a drama in which few believe. That is another reason why the end of prohibition portends a much bigger shift: it is an admission that the emperor has no clothes. Because what political truism was more unquestionable than “drugs are bad”? The bugbear called “drugs” is now admitted to be a valid form of medicine, psychotherapeutic research, and even recreation. What other unmentionables will be next? After all, public confidence in the fairness and soundness of the economic system, political system, educational system, health care system, global police state, and so on is no less shaky than support for the War on Drugs.

    Even as the psychic core of the old world hollows out (thanks in part to psychedelics), the external structures that hold us in that world are crumbling too. A mere generation ago, the pursuit of the “worldly ambitions” that Watts refers to reliably delivered at least the semblance of power, security, and control to the bulk of the world’s privileged. No longer. Today, even those who jump through all the hoops still have no guarantee of a place at the ever-shrinking table of normalcy. Play by all the rules, and still the institutions of marriage, healthcare, education, law, and economy fail us. The infrastructure of the old story that pulls us back from the world that psychedelics reveal as possible is losing its grip. As the hollowing-out from the inside meets the disintegration on the outside, cracks appear in the shell of our world. The impending ascendency of cannabis and psychedelics to legitimacy is one of them, and it will widen the others.

  • In my comment up-thread I challenged Dr. McPherson’s allegation or inference that Dr. James Hansen and scientists in his discipline are less competent to discuss climate change than conservation biologists are.

    I continue that challenge:

    “… the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe … There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living … Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious … Our experiments show that increased complexity in an essential molecular machine evolved because of simple, high-probability evolutionary processes … The most complex molecular machines are found within cells …” (Putting A Face On Machine Mutation – 3).

    One statement gets our attention anytime we talk about machine mutation and/or machine evolution.

    That statement is: DNA is not alive, is not life, it is a molecule, it is not living – it is a molecular machine.

    … DNA is chemical compound … DNA is non-living, because it is a molecule not an organism … DNA is not living. It is a chemical – a large fragile molecule … there is no debate in the biological community about this …

    The ribosome … is a large and complex molecular machine, found within all living cells, that serves as the primary site of biological protein synthesis …”

    (Putting A Face On Machine Mutation – 4).

    Why does Dr. McPherson argue in the video that Dr. James Hansen is less competent to deal with climate change science that a conservation biologist?

    After all carbon dioxide could not exist until carbon was made in stars, then was ejected when the star went nova, etc. … thus cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers are perfectly capable of discussing green house gases (which are carbon based).

    And that carbon can into existence well before carbon based life forms on Earth did.

    The machine age preceded the age of organisms by more than the age of the earth, i.e. by billions of years.

    Dig the new paradigm (The New Paradigm: The Physical Universe Is Mostly Machine)

  • Thomas R. Lounsbury, ed. (1838–1915). Yale Book of American Verse. 1912.

    Francis Bret Harte. 1839–1902

    199. The Society upon the Stanislaus

    I RESIDE at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James;
    I am not up to small deceit or any sinful games;
    And I ‘ll tell in simple language what I know about the row
    That broke up our Society upon the Stanislow.

    But first I would remark, that it is not a proper plan 5
    For any scientific gent to whale his fellowman,
    And, if a member don’t agree with his peculiar whim,
    To lay for that same member for to “put a head” on him.

    Now nothing could be finer or more beautiful to see
    Than the first six months’ proceedings of that same Society, 10
    Till Brown of Calaveras brought a lot of fossil bones
    That he found within a tunnel near the tenement of Jones.

    Then Brown he read a paper, and he reconstructed there,
    From those same bones, an animal that was extremely rare;
    And Jones then asked the chair for a suspension of the rules, 15
    Till he could prove that those same bones was one of his lost mules.

    Then Brown he smiled a bitter smile, and said he was at fault,
    It seemed he had been trespassing on Jones’s family vault;
    He was a most sarcastic man, this quiet Mr. Brown,
    And on several occasions he had cleaned out the town. 20

    Now I hold it is not decent for a scientific gent
    To say another is an ass,—at least, to all intent;
    Nor should the individual who happens to be meant
    Reply by heaving rocks at him, to any great extent.

    Then Abner Dean of Angel’s raised a point of order, when 25
    A chunk of old red sandstone took him in the abdomen,
    And he smiled a kind of sickly smile, and curled up on the floor,
    And the subsequent proceedings interested him no more.

    For, in less time than I write it, every member did engage
    In a warfare with the remnants of a palæozoic age; 30
    And the way they heaved those fossils in their anger was a sin,
    Till the skull of an old mammoth caved the head of Thompson in.

    And this is all I have to say of these improper games,
    For I live at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James;
    And I ‘ve told in simple language what I know about the row 35
    That broke up our Society upon the Stanislow.

  • This piece of news is a taste of what’s to come with regard to catastrophic climate change and its many possible ingredients: life migrations, drought, failure to control human population, ecosystem destruction and geopolitical upset over natural resources (water in this case):

  • actually, it’s this circus that brings out some of the best of me. so, thanks. long may you run..

  • somebody put some Tull on!!! HEAVY HORSES !!!

  • babjingo, that video is hilarious. I laughed so hard. Thank you. It is quite pertinent to a number of my own points.

  • When the radiologist is saying something, the internist is saying something, the orthopedist is saying something and the general surgeon is saying something, as the emergency physician one has to put it all together and figure out what to do for the patient.

    Likewise the conservation biologist is the overseer of the chute at the slaughterhouse that leads the animals to the stun gun. The conservation biologist puts together all the trends from the other scientists and translates it into ecosystem language.

  • Our gummit has overthrown another country for its oil.

    It is a very old habit:

    The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells or metal mines.

    (The Fleets & Terrorism Follow The Oil – 6, quoting a 1944 book).

    Dr. McPherson is correct to note that there is no way they will change and stop the extinction of civilization.

    In fact, if they continue to have their way, the human species will also become extinct.

  • .
    They way to get something you want to see is to be proactive and do it yourself, not to be reactive and try to eliminate other peoples rights and freedoms until you get some sort of a vacuum that you hope your preferences are going to magically emerge from.

    If you’d like to see links to climate articles on this site, then post your climate articles. If you’d like to see statistical factoids on climate trends, then take your two posts a day and post your statistical factoids. You won’t hear me complaining about your topics, or trying to limit what gets posted here just to suit my (quite likely to be narrow) individual experiences and preferences. Bring it all on (except the argument free abuse hurling at other people’s topics of course.)

    “What I’d like to see here …”

    If you’d like to see something here, then you have to DO IT YOURSELF.

    Don’t try and force me to do it for you.

    It’s like the abortion debate or the homophobia we see in the U.S. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. If you don’t like homosexuality, then don’t be a homosexual. But don’t try to force ME to exhibit the behaviors you’d like to see. YOU exhibit the behaviors you’d like to see. That’s the extent of your control. You have to BE the change you want to see. You don’t place limitations on others to get what you want … you DO IT YOURSELF.

    I’m a believer in NTE, yet I don’t get much out of daily temperature watching now that I know where we’re headed and how soon. That’s just one personality type, the news watcher, which I don’t begrudge at all. Just don’t force me to have the same interests. Isn’t there room for all of us in this tribe? All kinds of thinkers and not just one type?

    YOU post what you want to see here. Here’s a song about exactly this.

    “D.I.Y.” (Do It Yourself.)

    D.I.Y., D.I.Y., D.I.Y., D.I.Y.
    Don’t tell me what I will do, ‘cos I won’t.
    Don’t tell me to believe in you, ‘cos I don’t.
    Be on your guard, better hostile and hard, don’t risk affection;
    Like flesh to the bone in the no-go zone,
    You’re still looking for the Resurrection.
    Come up to me with your “What did you say?”
    And I’ll tell you, straight in the eye:

    D.I.Y., D.I.Y., [etc.]

    Everyone wants to be what he not, what he not.
    Nobody happy with what he got, what he got.
    You function like a dummy with a new ventriloquist,
    Do you say nothing yourself?
    Hanging like a thriller on the final twist,
    Is it true you’re getting stuck on the shelf?
    Come up to me with your “What did you say?”
    And I’ll tell you, straight in the eye:

    D.I.Y., D.I.Y., [etc.]

    When things get so big, I don’t trust them at all,
    You want some control, you’ve got to keep it small.

    D.I.Y., D.I.Y., [etc.]


  • .
    Oh, and thanks Satish and Dave thompson, great comments today, really enjoyed them both.

  • A little tricky to unwind, but the distinction between biological and mechanical self-organizing systems at least begs the question of what sort of underlying motivating pattern causes these phenomena to act and persist in a way that seems to run counter to the “laws” of themodynamics/entropy. It immediately appears to invoke an epistemological hall of mirrors that (for me personally) resolves into something like Brahman or the Mind of God, which of course is not strictly scientific or quantifiable or even rationally comprehensible, but is intuitively satisfying, and segues nicely to the Eisenstein reference concerning psychedelics and system change.

  • Guy, here’s an example from a ‘non-liberal’ media source to cite to as an example of the growing awareness of the threat climate change poses:

    [b]”We Could Be Seeing The Worst Case Scenario For Climate Change Now
    Eric Mack , CONTRIBUTOR[/b]

    “Here’s a few brutal facts about what’s been going on since October of 2015: The past seven months have been the hottest, based on global averages, that any human alive today has ever lived through. All of us today are living through unprecedented times, at least since we began keeping halfway decent temperature data in the nineteenth century, and perhaps much longer.

    “Last October, November and December, followed by this year’s January, February, March and April — for as long as we’ve been keeping records, those months of the year have never been hotter worldwide than over the past seven months. Oh, and the previous records for each of those months are being totally obliterated along the way.

    “Of course, that’s just air temperatures. What about the oceans? We often hear how critical they are to the climate. As it turns out, the past year has been even more out of the norm underwater. The ten warmest months for the world’s oceans have all occurred — any guesses?? — yep, in the past ten months.

    “Now you might say that you had a pretty cold or wet winter where you were and it’s the same where I live. But obviously global climate is a complex thing and certain regions saw more of that abnormal warming than others. Unfortunately, when you look at the places that took the brunt of the last several months, it’s more bad news.

    “Our northern latitudes saw insanely unusual heat this year that pushed temperatures at the North Pole up by over fifty degrees until it was over freezing… in the middle of winter. Some parts of Greenland were up to 36 degrees warmer than the average from the first ten years of this century.

    “Greenland, by the way, is home to a massive ice sheet that’s already melting and contributing to rising sea levels.

    “This is the point where tweets and comments about my being an alarmist begin to get composed. Given the data I’ve compiled here, perhaps it’s actually an accurate characterization this time. But when is the right time to sound the alarm? Do we need to wait until the fire has already burned down the town?

    “If that’s the case, then I think the people of Fort McMurray, Alberta might concur that the time for alarmism has come.”

  • Guy, an excellent presentation. I agree with Dr. Robin, and the biologist has an edge over the astronomer for understanding material consequences to ecology from planet murder, and the medical comparison is apt.

    babajingo, I didn’t answer your question. Yes, ad hominem is an attack on the person and not the issue. People are very creative with how they deliver their devaluing and ad hominem volleys come in many forms; there are many ways to undermine the other person’s position through ad hominem, including personal characteristics, histories, morals, motives, etc.

    I make fun of ad hominem attacks, and I absolutely will insult people directly, in particular when discussing a particular subject – what can I say, it’s my Alamo, and I’m livin’ and dyin’ on this line right here.

    A direct insult, however, is not an ad hominem attack. If someone argues a subject of debate successfully based on evidence, and then concludes that the losing argument lost because it was not in the least valid, and further concludes that the opponent is a pompous windbag who doesn’t know what he is talking about, that’s not ad hominem. You’re not insulting someone to prove their argument wrong. You’ve already done that. You’re insulting someone because their argument was wrong, and stupid, and sleezy, or however you see it. That’s not ad hominem. That’s opinion.

  • Wanda and Babajingo,thanks for the supportive comments.
    Yes, tribe or family, we seem to have little in common at times apart from this knowledge we share.

    LWA,I did see yourself first response in the back pages, but at the grumpy end of the day,and given the tone and content, didn’t feel it worthy of response.
    I wasn’t asking for weather reports as such.
    OG used to post the sort of thing I had in mind. Word pictures of his world. Trees, bird life, garden and such. I enjoyed them.
    I have also admonished the tribe on a number of occasions for macho bullshit and hacking at each other, and urged them to be kind.
    I am totally for free speech but have no interest in others opinion of others opinions!
    I participate here with some difficulty and considerable irritation. I will certainly not be increasing that. But thanks for the offer.

  • dave thompson Says:
    May 19th, 2016 at 4:49 am

    “Psychedelics and Systems Change | Charles Eisenstein
    Psychedelics and Systems Change…….”

    Good post!!

    Tsar Nicholas: you are a deluded idiot! You are willing to believe in Trump, who denies global warming, on anything? In reality, his nationalist America First competitive stance is highly likely to lead to a war quite fast. Not to mention his warming denial. I despise Scribble’s censoring ways, but he was right to delete such stupidity.

  • Here is an interesting article in a local Uni Rag that contains some vary sane stuff, IMHO.

    ‘Decolonising Academia’

    I like this quote:

    ” Even more radical than decolonisation, however, is the notion of “Indigenising” the academy. Mohawk Professor Taiaiake Alfred claims that “it’s impossible to Indigenise the academy. Because the academy is the academy.” However, just as Smith understands decolonisation as being a sight of both struggle and hope, he continues that Indigenous intellectuals must take advantage of their space within the academy, work with people who understand, of who have elected to learn about the problems and flaws of these institutions, and refuse to be undermined by them. “You can’t Indigenise the academy, but you can create very effective spaces for mobilising indigenous people as decolonising agents by remaining committed to that.” ”

    But one has to ask…Is there time to make some of these changes?

    Live how you feel brings a better reality now, and be prepared to discuss your feelings about the planet that is our home.

    We are the early humans, I feel.

    ‘The Carpenters – We’ve Only Just Begun’

    A quote:

    “So many roads to choose, we start out walking and learn to run”

    To this I would add “… and then started driving, rail transport and aviation, such that all but the road that leads directly to the cliff are foreclosed”

    Wheel ruts are a bummer, had we kept just walking we might have had a chance.

    Anyway, the wise one of all mature cultures have always seen that this is only a domain for early development, other worlds await. It is a truism from the old book- ‘The meek shall inherit the earth.’ The corollary is therefore worth looking at to:

    The courageous get free and achieve liftoff.

    Guidance systems…check. Main engine start…check. Heartfelt determination to live a life of love and heartbreaking joy…Checkmate.


    ‘Apollo 11 – Saturn V Launch’

    This is the realisation of the (IMHO) flawed humanist project of responding to the urge to throw off the constraints of the mother(culture, spirituality framing)- which is necessary on the journey to self realisation. The adolescent phase beyond childhood. The humanists who went the way of material physics, reductionist epistemologies and materialism framed that struggle since Newton as a desire to leave the Earth. We all know the human and animal bodymind complex is adapted to the Earth, so they have to take their little Earth habitat with them to survive, (just a bit longer).
    All that effort is interesting, but you still die up there in the cubicle of steel, or aluminum. You never get the real release that is the spiritual centre of the longing or desire for psychological and spiritual maturity. It never comes because all the attention is on the material functions of life.

    I like rockets, don’t get me wrong.
    But the path to the stars is an inner journey, and the ego death needed is accomplished while alive, by a highly trained and loving being.

    Find your path beyond your limited conception of who and what a human is.

    You have all the time in the world…which is not much really from now on. lol. Do the math.



  • Thanks Jeff S. I was thinking about back in the day when I used to get psychedelics and that the best time and use I got out of them was the low dose. Glad to see someone else here is thinking about living a life of excellence. (Just kidding).

  • tnx in advnce j

  • hey lwa, why don’t you take your own advice, and just skip reading a post if you’re not interested. novel idea huh?!

  • Hubbout a couple more fer y’all:

    Stephen Jenkinson – Interview with New Dimensions Radio

    “a href=””>Stephen Jenkinson – Die Wise (2016 Hollyhock Talks Podcast)

  • dave thompson Says:
    May 19th, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    “Thanks Jeff S. I was thinking about back in the day when I used to get psychedelics and that the best time and use I got out of them was the low dose. Glad to see someone else here is thinking about living a life of excellence. (Just kidding).”

    While i had strong disagreements with Terence McKenna (using past tense since he’s dead), i totally agree with his theses that psychedelic plants, in particular mushrooms, played a key role in human evolution. All ancient societies had such rituals. Western industrial monotheistic “civilization” is unique in not only eschewing them but downright repressing them. It also has be far the worst drug abuse problems of any society in history.

  • India just set a new all-time record high temperature — 123.8 degrees

    Wikipedia has a list of weather records here –

    In the section “Highest temperatures ever recorded”, there’s a table of record breaking temperatures along with the date and the temperature. If we sort the table by date (in descending order), we’d notice that roughly half (47) of the 100+ countries broke their high temperature records in the last ~ 6 years (2010 and later). 17 countries broke their all-time high records in 2010. And 13 in 2015.


    Tsar Nicholas said, “The chief danger is that we may not het to die from climate change because we will get to die from nuclear war first. If you think I’m exaggerating just consider that there is a military build-up on Russia’s borders which has not been seen since 1941.”

    War is looking more and more likely as the months go by.

    Perhaps the ultimate pyrrhic victory to be won by an out-of-control civilization in its war against nature would be that it won’t let nature fire the last shots but instead end up exterminating itself by its own hand!

  • I talked about that shit in the las thread already- THIS is the SUPERGAU for the ff fools:

    19.5.2016 – 100+ New Documents Highlight How Oil Industry Studied Climate and Delayed Solutions

    Washington, DC – Today, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) launched a searchable database of more than 100 documents that brings to light new information on how the oil industry responded – and failed to respond – in the face of climate change.

    “We now know that the oil industry was engaged in climate science by the 1950s and on notice of climate risks by the 1960s. The question arises: What did they do with that information?” said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. “Our research suggests the oil companies invested more in explaining away climate risks than in confronting them.”

    Key Findings

    Even as its understanding of climate risks increased, the oil industry funded research into: other pollutants that would offset warming; potential carbon sinks that would reduce the need to control emissions; and alternate theories of climate change that continue to be used by climate deniers.

    Patent filings demonstrate that the industry had the technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as early as the 1970s. Exxon held patents for fuel cells and other clean transport technologies even as they opposed government research funding for electric cars. Exxon and other oil companies patented technologies to cut CO2 emissions from gas streams in half, but decided they were too expensive.

    At the same time, oil companies invested in taller oil rigs that could withstand rising sea levels caused by climate change. And they patented offshore drilling rigs and ice-breaking tankers designed for oil-rich and rapidly changing Arctic environments.

    Beyond simply understanding climate, Exxon and other oil companies sought ways to control it. Industry-promoted studies argued that petroleum products could help control the climate: burning oil on the ground to clear away fog or blow away smog; coating large areas of the earth in asphalt to change rainfall patterns; or using oil slicks on the sea surface or carbon dust sprayed from aircraft to shift or weaken hurricanes.

    Critical Questions

    During the 1960s, proponents of weather modification actively discussed the prospect of using carbon dust, ice clouds, or other methods to permanently melt the Arctic sea ice. In light of its Arctic interests and its investment in weather modification, did the oil industry’s research include such an agenda?

    After opposing early government research funding for electric vehicles, what steps did the industry take to develop and commercialize its own patents?

    Increasing linkages in research

    Together with the new findings, CIEL is launching an interactive database that makes the documents more accessible to researchers, allowing users to quickly identify critical connections between companies, research institutes, and key individuals.

    “This database puts documents into the hands of scholars, legal advocates, and the public,” said. “We expect this access to spur broader inquiry that will result in additional findings and connections.”

    Today’s release is the second in a continuing series of releases based on active and ongoing research. CIEL plans to make additional documents them available to the public and other researchers in the weeks ahead.”

    To view our research and document excerpts visit:

    Everything I talked about above is in this thread, the whole picture becomes clearer and clearer evermore. WHAT A CRIMINAL DESASTER. Here we are in the eye of the storm.

  • Correction:

    ” Everything I talked about above is in this thread” should be:

    ” Everything I talked about in the last thread…”

  • Now tell me, who is responisble for that shit?

  • In 1886, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius developed an equation for chemical reaction rates that would make his name commonplace in fossil fuel combustion science—and oil companies. Ten years later, in 1896, he would become the first scientist to quantify the impact of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the global atmosphere. His later hypothesis that fossil fuel combustion might increase global temperature featured in both popular and academic texts throughout the early 20th century, including geology texts that would have been required reading for aspiring geologists.”

    Where were the conservation biologists?

    (The Exceptional American Denial).

  • Physicists and inorgnic chemists do not generally study molecularr cell biology and ambient physical and chemical influences on organisms, although there are a few who have switched disciplines in mid-career to biological sciences.

    It is the biologists that study organisms, ecosystems, and the extent of ecosystem disruption, based on data of environmental changes, mostly of non-biolocical origin.

  • Peter Melton is such a fine introducer in each presentation; I cheer up considerably whenever he is on the scene.

    I’ll burn one post quickly, in hopes of still making it to the gym before hotel checkout time, and second the praise for this presentation, where I’ve so far made it to the Aaron Sorkin clip.

    Guy has slipped in new perspectives at the beginning, and I’ll just say that the cloud forcing aspects of a water planet are new to me, and ominous indeed as they clarify in my outlook of abrupt collapse.

    This “Big Picture” perspective is really all-absorbing, if there’s a pun there that I don’t yet understand well enough to be intended.

    Guy is getting closer to dispelling hopes of non-extinction, but I want to repeat my reaction, or what I imagine others might be thinking to resist with, when he repeats “we haven’t had humans on this planet at such-and-such degrees…”

    He often draws the case of “we go out of this room and it’s x degrees hotter or cooler. It’s not that we can’t adapt, it’s that our habitat cannot adapt.” So I think he grounds the case well with that inclusion.

    What I think may be in the backs of many minds is the larger case of that variability, thinking “Well, there ARE habitats that are NOW regularly averaging MORE than the 15 degrees, or the future 18 or 20 degrees, already. These are tropical climates where it never goes below 25 degrees, and many people live there now.”

    That’s sort of a version of the “going out of the room” thinking.

    No, it’s not completely thought-out and logical, but denial never is. You need to connect ALL the dots for them.

    So I think Guy does make the obvious case for massive die-off, i.e., the people of civilization IN CITIES will die.

    But, to get to extinction, I think he needs to state and connect just one more dot to dispel that back-of-the-mind denial. And it’s that ALL habitats will be under similar pressures. And that the people now living, or at least surviving, in the tropical (and mostly poor) habitats will also see THEIR temperatures go up by 3 or 5 degrees more.

    Their crops, and their animals, will lose the ability to adapt, perhaps long after the die-off in cities, but nevertheless eventually. What was once “comfortable” for them, too, will be no more.

    And the people in the now-colder climates will perhaps benefit for awhile from a few degrees of higher temps, but eventually the changes will outrun the adaptability of their food sources. And THAT will be the extinction event.

    I’ve just come from a high-altitude city that is usually around 22 degrees, “eternal Spring”, but El Nino has it breaking records at over 30 degrees almost every day this year. And the road to the airport, at an even higher altitude, has a sign over the highway reporting 15 degrees usually. So I think about these localized states and effects at those times, coming and going.

    Their food comes from even hotter valleys outside the city, so I wonder how they are going to survive. (Answer: Obviously, they won’t. But I think they may hold out longer than North America.)

    So Guy’s explanations (and continued analysis of available research) come closer and closer to piercing those shadows of denial. (“Enlightenment”, indeed.)

    In Keeling’s latest report of permanent 400+ ppm, he explains that CO2 takes a year to distribute around the globe. Methane, I’m sure is on a similar timeframe, probably slower. Ocean warming creates a similar distribution over time.

    So I think Guy’s presentations, while successfully offering the general case for mass die-off, need to target those last recesses of denial, in that most of us will try to retain some hold-out illusions of survival, if not for ourselves then on behalf of some unknown humanity, somewhere.

    Maybe Guy is just too kind a soul to go that far.

    Humanity’s experience with disasters, with landslides and floods and massacres, is that someone survives, escapes to tell about it. That is deeply rooted in our memories. And our denial.

    I know it is difficult in a lecture format, but, to make the case for abandoning the denial of extinction, Guy needs to demonstrate a pathway — or at least offer anecdotally — to “the lights going out” on the last vestiges — not of civilization — but of some shepherds living, with difficulty, in some remote Himalayan valley. Or wherever. (The last people will not know that they are the last people.)

    Now, off to the gym, my survival, hopefully, as I await the blue-water event.

  • @Dredd, I get what you are saying, but… “a large and complex molecular machine” isn’t just DNA, it’s us and all “living” creatures. If DNA can replicate itself, it’s “alive”. Viruses still remain an academic battleground: are they “living”, or not? A ton of viral genetic material ends up in our own [8% of us is composed of such “non-living” viral genetics], so who is to say? The line is unclear and may be an irrelevant distinction.

    [viruses] make up the largest component of biomass on this planet(Bamford 2003, Research in Microbiology 154; 231-236). So far every living organism that has been studied to date has had at least one virus associated with it, and viruses out number all other life forms by at least an order of magnitude (Ackerman 2003, Research in Microbiology 154; 245-251). … not only is viral presence on this planet all encompassing, but every sequenced organism to date has a major component of its genome that is viral in origin…

    In an analogous limbo lies the field of biology. It’s not regarded as a “hard science” like chemistry or physics or mechanical/chemical engineering or astronomy because living things are squishy (is the best reason I can come up with). When I was in college anyone in the biology department who studied something as large as a cell was a complete oddball: even biologists have been steered away from holistic studies and into reductionist ones. Biochemistry, biophysics, and genetic engineering is where the money is, as well.

    I haven’t watched the video yet, but you claim McPherson said “James Hansen is less competent to deal with climate change science than a conservation biologist.” Whoever’s phrasing that is, I would re-word things: “Hansen is less competent to *predict the effects of* climate change *on biological systems* than a conservation biologist”.

    “Climate change science” appears to be mostly physics and chemistry and not much, if any, biology.

    You get into the same sort of thing with hard-scientists and engineers talking about humans living in on Mars or in outer space: they just have no clue how delicate and subtle are the mechanisms that keep us alive… they think it can all be McGyvered with nuclear power, algae, and a spanner.

  • DIY: finished planting the last of several hundred trees. Necessary, but not sufficient. It’s still nice to see them leaf out and blossom for now. Past weeks have had unusual hot periods (80s) but some of the same frosts, so some of the new shoots have suffered the cold. What’s a little more unnerving is the prickling feeling of the sun on my back, even on a cool day like yesterday (60-ish), through two layers of clothing. Is it my imagination?

    Here’s my arborescent pal:

  • Human civilization in general rejected renewable energy long ago, when it was utterly abundant, universal, and so cheap it was almost free” (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports – 6).

  • ““Human civilization in general rejected renewable energy long ago, when it was utterly abundant, universal, and so cheap it was almost free”
    Yep, keep perpetuating the myth. Guy debunked this over two years ago.

  • I don’t think Guy said Hansen was less competent. He said that his message was different because he’s a biologist, and Hansen is a physicist and astronomer.

    @Lidia, you wrote:

    “You get into the same sort of thing with hard-scientists and engineers talking about humans living in on Mars or in outer space: they just have no clue how delicate and subtle are the mechanisms that keep us alive… they think it can all be McGyvered with nuclear power, algae, and a spanner.”

    Great comment. The Life makes a difference. I consider my dozen years working at a hospital inpatient unit to be a wonderful lesson in being able to observe applied science in action. Medical providers get to see the variation in the efficacy of treatments, theories and studies firsthand while observing their patients’ responses. They see wide variations in a lot of things all the time that the other science disciplines don’t see. I consider the conservation biologist in the position. Life does not appear to be a machine.


    Politics has nothing to do with solving problems or making improvements: politics is all about making predicaments WORSE, but pretending that solutions and improvements are being provided whilst at the same time orchestrating the depletion of energy and resources, and degrading the overall environment.

    As long as the idiotic notion of infinite growth on a finite planet is held in esteem (and there is no indication of that idiotic notion being dropped by politicians any time soon) everything will continue be made worse. Indeed, since all our predicaments are of an exponential nature, we can say that everything will be made worse at an ever faster pace…..until the system destroys itself and destroys the habitability of the Earth.

    First Law of Sustainability: “You cannot sustain population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources. ”

  • Lidia said, “If DNA can replicate itself, it’s “alive”. Viruses still remain an academic battleground: are they “living”, or not? A ton of viral genetic material ends up in our own [8% of us is composed of such “non-living” viral genetics], so who is to say? The line is unclear and may be an irrelevant distinction.”



    The line that modern man has drawn between what he calls “living” and “non-living” is rather arbitrary. Having drawn that line, we now wonder how life emerged from non-life. How inorganic chemical molecules became organic biological organisms. As with the Big Bang (I’m not denying that it happened), this transition from non-life to life is yet another event that confounds the modern scientist. As Rupert Sheldrake humorously points out, it’s as if the Scientist is saying, “give me one free miracle and I will explain the rest”.

    Indigenous peoples the world over didn’t/don’t have this confusion. To them, all of the creation around them is alive, thriving and teeming with consciousness. It seems such a worldview is similar to what we might call “Animism”.

    What is life?



    Thanks for the link to “smoke and fumes”. Another “shocking” excerpt:

    Finally, the linkages between weather modification efforts and the oil industry’s decades long focus on reaching and exploiting the (warming) Arctic cannot be ignored. Soon after SRI’s Elmer Robinson published research on “Ice Fog” as an air pollution problem in the Arctic, meteorologist Harry Wexler drew on Robinson’s work to explain how human-made ice clouds (produced by petroleum combustion) could be used to melt the Arctic ocean. Indeed, petroleum products feature repeatedly in scientific discussions on the prospects for permanently melting the Arctic sea ice – over large areas or across the Arctic Ocean as a whole – whether intentionally, by spreading carbon dust from cargo planes, or inadvertently, through the impacts of Arctic oil spills. The oil industry’s own role in these discussions remains uncertain, though its awareness of them is clear.


    “The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” – Utah Phillips

  • .

    Thanks for sharing your post. Thanks for the Carpenters song too.

    You know, the first minute of your Apollo 11 video looked like it could have been oilsands facilities burning up and getting blown to smithereens in a forest fire. That was really cool. Loved it !! Exhilarating !! Lift off !!

    Cheers OzMan. :)


    Digi … sorry, scrolled past your post.

  • Lidia,

    In an analogous limbo lies the field of biology. It’s not regarded as a “hard science” like chemistry or physics or mechanical/chemical engineering or astronomy because living things are squishy (is the best reason I can come up with).

    Lots of atoms or molecules in a mole. Lots of particles in most things that are experimented on by physicists or engineers. Whatever is being observed or tested or experimented on has sheer numbers on its side wrt disregarding the dreaded subatomic effects (quantum woo?) that are believed to be happening.
    Virtual particles of one type are probably balanced by other virtual particles so the material behaves pretty much classically, if not ideally.

    When you move up to the size of most living things, don’t you start to involve protoplasm with its mix of ingredients, some of which interact with each other at different rates and maybe in different ways depending on the local temperature and pressure (and presence of electrical fields, etc.)? It’s more predictable than, say, a tornado or hurricane, but subject to lots more variability than, say, the electrolysis method of producing H2 & O2 from water.

    I think by the time nervous systems are involved, the things under study are even more subject to variation than before. A giraffe or two will display more variable behavior than a chunk of heart tissue. I originally thought “Oh, then we just get 10 to the 23rd power giraffes together and then the degree of variability will start to go down.” But, apart from being a big load of biomass that might destabilize a planetary orbit, there’s bound to be new social behavior by the time you see 600 zetta-giraffes on the hoof (and on the make, cause 600 zetta-giraffes can’t be enough…for giraffes).

    Get into things that appear to play consciously when not held captive, like dogs, whales, dolphins, or humans and you’re studying systems that do not necessarily respond the same way to two identical stimuli separated by seconds, hours, days, or longer. That rottweiler pup may want to do you in as much as its mature cousin does, but it probably won’t try it until it has grown to a size that makes it the smart money bet to beat you. Of course it could be off in its calculations/analysis and go for your throat when it is too young, but evolution & selection march on.

    The way this looks to me isn’t so much squishy in the physical sense as it is squishy in the abstract, due to the increasing number of variables involved as you move up the scale of complexity among living things. As complicated as our cars have become, the horses they replaced long ago are still far more complicated. Maybe the squishiness of the math required by so many variables dims the attraction of this field to the average student…the money in biotech engineering and related fields is surely a non-trivial factor too.

    For a bunch of deterministic robots, they sure look like they’re consciously choosing to collaborate cooperatively on China Cat.

  • infanttyrone, thanks! Those musical links were awesome. Chinacat/Rider woo hoo!!! Classical Gas actually always makes me think of the Simpson’s episode when they go on strike at the nuclear power plant and Lisa plays that song.

    p.s. you make a good point- the Grateful Dead “surely look like they’re consciously choosing to collaborate cooperatively on China Cat.” But the sun “surely looks like” it’s setting behind a fixed horizon, yet we know it’s not. Your computer “surely looks like” it’s a solid mass of plastic and metal, but in reality we all know it (like all matter) is just a lot of swirling electrons and protons. Nothing in our known Universe is technically solid. But it “surely looks like” it is. Just sayin’… please don’t take this as me opening the Pandora’s Box of the free will argument again. I think we’ve all had enough of that. Yes?

  • Jeff S. says Dr. McPherson debunked this:
    [begin quote]

    Human civilization in general rejected renewable energy long ago, when it was utterly abundant, universal, and so cheap it was almost free.

    The context now is: a global danger.

    The question, then, is “what can culture / civilization (not individuals) do about that?” since culture / civilization rejected natural, renewable energy long ago –without our collective and our individual input.

    Was anyone reading this asked about it back in 1750 when the Industrial Revolution Rejection began to take place?


    The reactionary question now should be: “can this civilization, this culture, go back to the natural renewable energy of the natural Earth that once existed?”

    That natural, renewable energy has always existed for humans, so those who now try to make something new, something that has existed since before civilization, are missing something (it isn’t imagination).

    The at-one-time most-quoted-historian was neither optimistic nor pessimistic when he wrote:

    In other words, a society does not ever die ‘from natural causes’, but always dies from suicide or murder — and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown.”

    (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change, quoting “A Study of History“, by Arnold J.Toynbe). He was simply being historical.

    Further, the question even becomes “can this civilization go back to natural renewable energy” rather than the question “is it possible in the abstract?”

    Why is this civilization (the Anthropocine, purveyors of the ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction) more able than the others before it?

    How are we more ecologically adept than those which historian Toynbee studied then wrote about?

    Those that committed suicide or were murdered?

    We all tend to think that “anything is possible” in the abstract, but we are not in the abstract folks.

    Neither is civilization (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
    [end quote]

    The quote is from (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports – 6).

    Too much bad acid Jeff S, all Dr. McPherson debunked in his post you linked to was your LSD hypothesis (of course you did your part to debunk your LSD hypothesis too).

  • Concentrated, portable, non-intermittent and inexpensive energy was selected when the technology to extract and employ that energy became available. The fact that it was non-renewable was masked by sufficient resources to last several generations; depletion did not become a problem in that time period.

    The necessary technology developed as firewood depletion led to a switch to then-plentiful coal in England.

  • moderator, plese delete my comment above as the HTML was messed up. Thanks in advance …

    Lidia Says:
    May 20th, 2016 at 8:42 am

    @Dredd, I get what you are saying, but … When I was in college anyone in the biology department who studied something as large as a cell was a complete oddball … “Climate change science” appears to be mostly physics and chemistry and not much, if any, biology.

    As to “climate change science”, that is because the atmosphere, the oceans, and land is abiotic, not biotic (molecules, atoms) with carbon based biological entities in and on them (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion – 27).

    I don’t know when you were in college, but in the last few years microbiology is on fire with activity since various discoveries have exploded into the realm of cellular science.

    I haven’t written anything on it for quite a while now, but here is a link to a low level post on it (On The Origin of Genieology).

    PS. A certain percentage of students do not understand the nature of DNA even after college courses pointing out that it is not alive:
    We are involved in a project to incorporate innovative assessments within a reform-based large-lecture biochemistry course for nonmajors. We not only assessed misconceptions but purposefully DNA molecule is not alive changed instruction throughout the semester to confront student ideas. Our research questions targeted student conceptions of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) along with understanding in what ways classroom discussions/activities influence student conceptions. Data sources included pre-/post-assessments, semi-structured interviews, and student work on exams/assessments. We found that students held misconceptions about the chemical nature of DNA, with 63% of students claiming that DNA is alive prior to instruction. The chemical nature of DNA is an important fundamental concept in science fields. We confronted this misconception throughout the semester collecting data from several instructional interventions. Case studies of individual students revealed how various instructional strategies/assessments allowed students to construct and demonstrate the scientifically accepted understanding of the chemical nature of DNA. However, the post-assessment exposed that 40% of students still held misconceptions about DNA, indicating the persistent nature of this misconception. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.”
    (ibid, “On The Origin of Genieology” link above).


  • I found this to be an interesting read, find out for yourself.

  • .

    @dave thompson

    Why did you find your link interesting? No opinion there? Pro, con, what?

    Here’s what I thought. Garbage … and American exceptionalism. A scammed mind.

    From whom do we suppose that jihadists learn to appreciate the value of high explosive as vivid speech if not from the example of the U.S.

    Because it was not done by jihadists … it was done by the Americans to manipulate the minds of it’s citizens, as has happened to the writer of that opinion blog.

    The organizers of the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan clearly not only understood the ethos of globalized finance capitalism but also the idiom of the American news and entertainment media. Their production values were akin to those of Independence Day; the spectacle of the World Trade Center collapsing in ruins was rated by the New York film and social critics as “awe inspiring,” “never to be forgotten,” “shatteringly emotional.”

    And your blog writer still thinks it was the little brown men from over the hill who did this, and just has a new insane insight that maybe they learned how to manipulate minds so well, in an American format, and from the American example, by perfectly copying the American’s mastery of the art form?

    Occam’s razor my friend, Occam’s razor.

    I saw a picture of the Bin Laden family on holidays from when Osama was just a kid. They looked like any American family off to Disneyland. Girls in pants, heads uncovered, smiling, happy … indistinguishable from 1950’s America. Osama was pissed the Americans turned his country into the brutal regime it did where women are now brutalized, covered, and beheaded in the street for expressing the remotest inkling of freedom.

    The reason America designed it’s spectacle of 9/11 was to manipulate it’s citizens. The reason they pinned it on Bin Laden was because he was starting to make a lot of noise about what American meddling was doing to his country, which was destroying it. Your opinion blog author is still under the illusion that was intended for him from 9/11, even if he just rearranges the puzzle pieces in his different sort of way. It’s just intellectual self deception he’s doing, as he still can’t bring himself to accept the bigger picture of what really went on there.

    He sees how much like masterful American propaganda 9/11 seems to have been, and now just rationalizes the jihadists took a play from the Americans? That’s quite the rationalization of what his mind is trying to tell him, yet he refuses to accept what he’s actually identifying there, which is that it was in fact the Americans who did it, using their own very well understood methodologies for manipulating minds and pinning thins on others.

    It’s interesting how opinions aren’t wanted here, yet links to others opinions are good stuff to ponder. Such is the schooled mind of citations, citations, citations I guess … but don’t have your own opinion about things. Ah empire brain training, don’t you just love it? Where’s my popcorn.

    What was your opinion about the blog entry you linked to dave?

    Agree, disagree … it could be either way, and you didn’t say.

    You gave no opinion about this person’s opinion. You just showed us his opinion.

    I thought that blogger’s opinion was garbage, and gave my opinion why.

    Or was the link just supposed to hang unaddressed in the non-discussion zone?

  • Dave Thompson…

    Lewis H. Lapham is an impressive writer to be sure. I’ll give you that, but what exactly is he writing about? and what is his position on the barbaric nature of humanity? Basically he doesn’t seem to have a position on anything other than the position that he feels that atrocities of the human kind are not necessarily all from Islamic origins? He does not seem to take sides in the horrible existence of undesirable anatomical end-of-life procedures, seemingly holding the position that terror is not necessarily solely of Islamic origins.

    Sure, we’re pretty much a bunch of f**^%-up beings…. But then, as I recall, maybe incorrectly since I read McKibben’s ‘The End of Nature’ many years ago, I don’t remember McKibben stating that humans were as unwelcome in the nature of things as blobs from Deep Space Nine.

    Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, great writing, but with seemingly little on which to grab onto definitively with respect to the author’s purpose.

  • .
    @Jean T.

    You sure gave that author a lot of credit. He clearly shows that he still thinks little brown barbarians attacked him, and I can’t take anyone that racist or blind seriously, nor would I credit their intellect (regardless of fancy elocution.)

    I thought he was clearly trying to rationalize to himself how something that didn’t happen did, in spite of the obvious. That’s not being very smart.

    “Great writing”

    Why, because he could form words? So much for the idea his words formed, which was nonsense. Like Dickens.

  • Some information about economic connections between the Bush family and the Bin Laden clan via the Carlyle Group:

    The Bin Laden Clan is one of the richest Saudi clans and the Saudia Arabia the BEST friend of the USA, always and ever. Why? Dead simple:

    Oil, oil, oil.

    Some 10% of the US economy is actually owned by the Saudis :-)

  • Max Keiser on Keiser Report: The End Game

    If you had a 30-yr treasury bond yielding 15%, or even 7% or 6% or 5%, that means we had a viable economy for 30 years. If the 30-yr treasury bond is paying 2% or less, that means you have no viable economy for 30 years, no viable economy in the present, if you have negative interest rates as they are in Switzerland and elsewhere and now encompassing trillions of dollars worth of sovereign debt around the world, that means the global economy is non-sustainable to support human effort. Couple that with the collapse of global biosphere and ecosystem, and you have premature human extinction. The same root cause, it’s too easy… the cost of committing eco-holocaust and financial degradation is too cheap, it’s just too cheap….

    Right, it’s a great definition of a parasite or a run-away cancer… no matter what… pick your poison… it’s not a sustainable civilization model.


    Few people step out of their “field of expertise” to study and understand how things work at large. Few people venture to comment on topics that they deem to be the domains of other experts. Few people retain their critical thinking skills “in-house” as opposed to outsourcing them away to others. Keiser is one of those few.

  • Yes LWA,I found this to be an interesting read, find out for yourself. So you did LWA, so you did. Thanks.

  • The Survival Acres guy is another of the few bloggers/commentators who truly understands our predicament:

  • babajingo,

    You’re very welcome for the clips.
    Not trying to stir up the free-will soup again.

    I didn’t refer to it in my post but what I thought was interesting about that group is that I read an interview with one of them in which he said that there were only a few, less than a dozen as I recall, times when they were on stage and entered a sort of group-mind phase where no one was ‘driving that train’, not even a reptilian “Alligator” issuing commands from the back seats on the lower level.

    That they would put so much conscious improvisational effort, which sure looked like it involved a group exercising free-will for the 10-20 concerts I saw back in the day, into a achieving/arriving at state where their egos were attenuated to a minimum and something else took over (if taking over is even the right idea) just seemed like an irony worth pondering.

    Liked those guys from the start…likewise with this one…who knew, until much later that he was also one of their fans?

    Well, this Elvis is still in the building, though much more mellow than in his early angry-young-man entry arc. Maybe this isn’t an NBL anthem for some folks, but it’s in my rotation until something better replaces it.

    Please continue…

  • Dredd Says:
    May 21st, 2016 at 2:48 am
    Jeff S. says Dr. McPherson debunked this:
    [begin quote]

    Too much bad acid Jeff S, all Dr. McPherson debunked in his post you linked to was your LSD hypothesis (of course you did your part to debunk your LSD hypothesis too).”

    Out-there ravings.I’ve read better stuff than that at sites extolling technology and techno-fixes. Flush, twice. “Society” never rejected or approved anything, a tiny few people made decisions. Your lack of historical understanding is breathtaking. Trash like that is a big reason i don’t frequent this wavelength much any more.

  • Guy – I was struck by that bit in this latest talk where you say Business Insider says Manhattan will be underwater by 2018… Thought it seemed a bit extreme, so I checked it out. As far as I can see, BI didn’t say anything of the sort – and certainly not with the sort of ridiculous illustration you showed. Your message is powerful enough given the established facts and, in my view, is seriously downgraded by including stuff like this. A bit more quality control, please.

  • @Rusty, I have zero sympathy for that farmer, saying he was “working with the land”.. he was destroying it! Plus, I notice the fuckers have enough water for the grass on the football field…

  • LWA,

    I commented: “Great writing”..

    to which you replied:
    “Why, because he could form words? So much for the idea his words formed, which was nonsense. Like Dickens.”

    There is a difference between writing well, making complete sense of what you are writing about, but yet be absolutely out-to-lunch in terms of what you believe or what you are writing about.

    The author uses excellent writing style, is somewhat interesting, but not relevant. Alternately, you can write something which is almost illegible, but yet superior in every way with its content.

    Darwin for instance wrote in simple terms, but what he wrote about was absolutely brilliant. As such, he was not a great writer, but a great thinker. The comment I made was the exact opposite. One can be a great writer, but not a great thinker. Not many can combine the two, good writing and good thinking. Same for posting comments… Try it!

  • Wow! clearly some people have too much time on their hands

  • Satish, I hope I’m on the side of truth and reality. For the record, I would like to state that I would consider any so-called scholarly proposal that sought to define any group of people or their culture to be entirely bogus if it began anything like:

    The fable of the intelligent Asian;
    The fairy tale of the civilized white man;
    The unreality of the wise African;
    The fantasy of the happy Polynesian;
    The myth of the advanced ancient Indian (India Indian)
    etc., etc.

    Any such premise is already biased, flawed and has an established weighted objective. I don’t think that any valid studies of people, and, or their cultures ever begin with something that is the equivalent of the Myth of the Noble Savage. Anything that begins that way should stop right there and do something else. And it’s funny that it’s only the noble savages who get to be scrutinized this way, as I’ve never heard anything like this approach to other cultures. Does anyone else have to put up with this?

    The following are all statements made by Tatanga Mani, a Stoney Indian from Canada. He was born in 1871. It’s easy to see that he labored under a persistent hallucination that he loved, respected, and studied nature.

    “Oh, yes, I went to the White Man’s schools. I learned to read from school books, newspapers, and the Bible. But in time I found that these were not enough. Civilized people depend too much on man-made printed pages. I turn to the Great Spirit’s book which is the whole of his creation. You can read a big part of the book if you study nature. You know, if you take all your books, lay them out under the sun, and let the snow and rain and insects work on them for a while, there will be nothing left. But the Great Spirit has provided you and me with an opportunity for study in nature’s university, the forests, the rivers, the mountains, and the animals which include us.

    •We saw the Great Spirit’s work in almost everything: sun, moon, trees, wind, and mountains. Some times we approached him through these things. . . . The red savages have always lived closer to nature than have the white savages. Nature is the book of that great power which one man calls God and which we call the Great Spirit. But, what difference does a name, make?

    •We had none of your denominations to split us, to introduce hatreds in the name of religion. We had no man-made guides to “right living;” nature was our guide. Nature is still my Bible, and I’ve just returned after many days of studying it.

    •Hills are always more beautiful than stone buildings, you know. Living in a city is an artificial existence. Lots of people hardly ever feel real soil under their feet, see plants grow except in flowerpots, or get far enough beyond the street lights to catch the enchantment of a night sky studded with stars. When people live far from scenes of the Great Spirit’s making, it’s easy for them to forget his laws.”

  • OGF,

    Those are beautiful wise statements by Tatanga Mani. It’s ironic that we have millions of books and trillions and trillions of bytes of data and yet we know little. Very little of what really matters. We make the mistake of pointing to our skyscrapers and helicopters as proof that we have arrived.

    One of the things modern man is highly prone to is projection, as you have pointed out before. Projection goes hand in hand with the inability to imagine… an inability to empathize and step into another being’s metaphorical shoes, a tendency to quickly make the assumption that we are the standard bearers for all existence. It was projection that led Hobbes to declare the life of the primitive man as nasty, brutish and short. It was the life of the common man in the crowded towns of his area that was nasty, brutish and short.

    Here’s some footage of a <a href=""Papua New Guinean tribe being contacted by civilized man for the first time (filmed in 1976). I have watched it many times, with much awe. The difference between the way the tribesmen approach the foreigner and the way the foreigner approaches the tribesmen is telling. The tribesmen are cautious, curious, shy and respectful while the foreigner is quick to extend his hand as if he’s meeting someone wearing a suit in New York. Some indigenous peoples like the Kogi call modern man their “younger brother” and that says a lot – they see us as their kin even as they know we have things to learn and grow… even as we blindly go about with all manner of destruction in our wake. What do we call them in return? Savages!

    What you said about how Native Americans teach their children (that they didn’t create what’s around them, it was already there when they arrived and hence they were not to take it for granted and they were not to destroy anything around them, anything they didn’t make themselves) is the most eminently logical thing any human culture could teach its young. Contrast that with how we tell our children that the world is their oyster and they can go out and do anything they choose. It’s a mantra that has such a positive connotation in our culture and it’s spoken as if it’s just the way it’s supposed to be.

    A Lani tribesman from West Papua after living in the UK for 2 years:

    In fact, almost everything is made up.

    Similar to the fact above, it is surprising to see that almost everybody tends to be ‘unrealistic’ and likes to ‘pretend’. Pretending is my favorite word when I think about my life in Britain. First time I came, I was telling the truth and real stories. Someone told me, “You are too honest! Stop it!”. Then I learnt how to pretend. But it is really difficult. I was born into and grew up in a different world. I cannot change my way of expressing myself in this country in less than 2 years. Also, there is no point of changing my life and the way I behave for the sake of Britain.

    Sometimes I spend hours in corner of some towns in Britain. My main task is to watch the faces of as many people as possible, to watch as many events as possible. Only one question in my mind for each event is this: “Is this real?”. Most of the time, the answer is “Not sure!”. Only a small proportion of the time I can surely say “Yes, it is real!”.

    I have spent some time with my friends (men, women and families) and tried to ask the same question. Unfortunately, ‘unrealistic’ is the best word I can use to describe the reality I have seen.

    I further asked myself, “Who is responsible for this whole disaster? Am I correct to be bothered with this? Can I change this? Should I tell them?”.

    Just Leave Us Alone! A letter from a Papuan Tribesman

  • Jeff S. Says:
    May 21st, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    … i don’t frequent this wavelength much any more …
    Hard truth does that to delusion.

    Spend some time here (You Are Here) and/or here (Choose Your Trances Carefully).

    But first, to stay in this wavelength you must develop reading comprehension (Reading Comprehension 101).

  • Good morning, sending my living mindful loving kindness in contemplative concentration of creation and destruction to all sentient beings.

  • OzMan

    I love your post, the one with the rocket… the one about the desire for humans to leave the Earth but that the true “leaving” is overcoming attachment to Ego. The whole post is very right on. Thanks for tat.

  • If the primary driver of evolution is great environmental pressure, perhaps it is time for humans to evolve into ethical compassionate beings.

    I was thinking about the Adam/Eve story and how the stolen fire of creativity forever barred humans from an integrated relationship with nature.

  • I’ve posted recent video from my latest tour. It’s here.

  • Satish, along with telling our youth that the world is their oyster, we also tell them that if they want to be a good or worthy person (inferred), they should go out and make the world “a better place.”

    Didn’t take long for that perspective to reveal itself as lunatic. See how much “better” everything is?

    This is interesting: “Pretending is my favorite word when I think about my life in Britain. First time I came, I was telling the truth and real stories. Someone told me, “You are too honest! Stop it!”.

    I had that same feeling of being completely confounded by everyone obligated to ask everyone else, “How are you?”, but never expecting an honest answer. I struggled with all of it for decades, literally. I remember the first time I lied to someone in the course of doing my job. This culture doesn’t think what I did was a lie, but my view knew it was not honest. I was thirty years old. I finally had learned to do what everyone told me I should do on the job, and that was be political instead of realistic. I felt like something very wonderful in me died in that moment. Something broke, and I’ve never forgotten what it felt like. I feel like I have come full circle now, and it’s okay. I don’t struggle trying to understand anymore. Now I just never talk to anyone except the dogs and a very few friends. Whenever I go out in the world for any reason, however, I am back on pretend planet.

    Actually, a lot of people here know what that feels like these days, because when it comes to NTE, we all have to pretend most of the time. I like near-term extinction – NTE – without the “human” in it, because it’s more than the humans going extinct.