matrixmann (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matrixmann) wrote2022-08-08 11:38 pm
matrixmann) wrote2022-08-08 11:38 pm
Entry tags:
Worlds apart, united in anthropocentrism (together the ruin of the earth)
You know what’s going to be the biggest factor getting in the way of soothing the extent that climate change will have on this blue sphere here?
The international community outside of the Western countries gives a fuck about so-called “green technologies”. They care more about their own development, which had been kept down for centuries by the plundering of the dominant European and North American countries. And that means, cheap energy accessible to the biggest mass of people and local industries carries more importance than making it as exclusive as it can get through applying complex and expensive technologies in the chain, which the bigger parts of the population in the first world countries are able to afford (in whatever way possible to individuals).
The mindset of the Western world and what they think of as “problems” is so far away from those of the rest of the world - literally elevated thousands of kilometers above the ground, figuratively.
So are many other issues such as that of a cultural nature, for example.
The rest of the world literally doesn’t care about the gender-fantasies of twenty-somethings in the US or Europe and their dreams of deconstructing the biological base of the two sexes. Or about rainbow flags, pride months and loudly celebrating LGBT minority rights like they would be a cure against HIV and cancer altogether (rights which quite a chunk of areas in the world don’t have anyway).
There are way more urgent problems to them than such boredom- and living-in-security-driven ergotherapy of emphasizing things that revolve around the aspect of the anthropocentric worldview to overestimate the social ongoings between humans in a society.
To the rest of the world, the classic aspects of the mindset of the anthropocentric worldview are important: Where do humans get a space to live, a roof over their head, food and water for humans, jobs to earn money and chances to procreate - as well as chances to feed that offspring and raise it into an adult.
If you want to get the rest of the world into the same boat as the culturally loony Western part of the planet, then you first rather need to get them to abandon their part of the anthropocentric worldview, in which all natural resources of the planet exist just to serve and be consumed primarily by humans. - Including your own focus where human business and social interaction still also overshadows everything, beside you talking about “wanting to save the world” and “protecting the environment” (inconsequently).
The international community outside of the Western countries gives a fuck about so-called “green technologies”. They care more about their own development, which had been kept down for centuries by the plundering of the dominant European and North American countries. And that means, cheap energy accessible to the biggest mass of people and local industries carries more importance than making it as exclusive as it can get through applying complex and expensive technologies in the chain, which the bigger parts of the population in the first world countries are able to afford (in whatever way possible to individuals).
The mindset of the Western world and what they think of as “problems” is so far away from those of the rest of the world - literally elevated thousands of kilometers above the ground, figuratively.
So are many other issues such as that of a cultural nature, for example.
The rest of the world literally doesn’t care about the gender-fantasies of twenty-somethings in the US or Europe and their dreams of deconstructing the biological base of the two sexes. Or about rainbow flags, pride months and loudly celebrating LGBT minority rights like they would be a cure against HIV and cancer altogether (rights which quite a chunk of areas in the world don’t have anyway).
There are way more urgent problems to them than such boredom- and living-in-security-driven ergotherapy of emphasizing things that revolve around the aspect of the anthropocentric worldview to overestimate the social ongoings between humans in a society.
To the rest of the world, the classic aspects of the mindset of the anthropocentric worldview are important: Where do humans get a space to live, a roof over their head, food and water for humans, jobs to earn money and chances to procreate - as well as chances to feed that offspring and raise it into an adult.
If you want to get the rest of the world into the same boat as the culturally loony Western part of the planet, then you first rather need to get them to abandon their part of the anthropocentric worldview, in which all natural resources of the planet exist just to serve and be consumed primarily by humans. - Including your own focus where human business and social interaction still also overshadows everything, beside you talking about “wanting to save the world” and “protecting the environment” (inconsequently).
no subject
I think it was years ago that I read some small article that the last trolleybuses here in the country were abandoned.
Although, I can't tell if that's true.
At least I know that, about 10 years ago, Erfurt still had such ones. I think they had a complete city line that drove in a circle. If you already found your way out to the street of the railway station, the next mean to transport you further into the city that came along was a bus with "antlers". (Strange thing to see, if you don't know that something like that exists.)
Solar energy here has a bit more complex story than you draw it there... First, somehow this industry settled down in East Germany, out of all places it could choose. And there was a boom for years in that sector. 15 years ago, stocks like that of firms like Solarworld, they reached higher and higher with no real end in sight.
But then, as people literally even started getting themselves solar cells in order to produce electric energy themselves that had to be injected into the electricity supply net by the big players in the field, and which the latter even had to pay the people with the solar panels, then politics interfered into the game and agreed on decisions and laws which were aimed at making this production of electric energy by people other than the big planers unprofitable in the long term.
In short words: They undertook measures to get the ordinary people out of the supply market, in order to secure the profits of the big players - which own the big power plants.
At the time, there were also the first peope which talked of a "decentralized electric energy production" - meaning "cover all the roofs with solar panels in order to produce the energy we use up, so we can maybe switch off one big power plant".
I think this is something which the big players in the field wanted to prevent to happen under all circumstances.
Not only that they would have had to share the profits from supplying people with electric energy, but also, in the long term, there would have been competition to their conventional power plants (masses of solar panels anytime reach the production capacity of conventional power plants) - and that's something they didn't want.
These wishes of the big energy supply corporations were realized, now you only produce electric energy for yourself if you have solar panels, and they're as happy to still be the one who gets to cash in all of what people pay for electricity.
But, there was a price of that: The whole new industrial branch that had settled down in East Germany died through that. Because the attractiveness of solar panels dropped through all these measures, and because then China came along, capable and skilled to produce these solar panels way cheaper for everyone.
All those new firms active in the solar branch died one after another. And East Germany, again, became a desert in terms of "importance for whole Germany".
There would have been much different potentials in the solar branch, but politics and greedy fat cats destroyed it.
So - it's difficult to say at how much extent energy supply through this method "fails".
Through the politics done over a course of the last 15 years, it looks more like the electricity-producing industry behaves as stingy as stingy capitalists always behave - they want to make money with something for as long as they can, without changing anything in the concept and doing the least of maintenance to keep everything up an running.
If someone coerces them to build new structures, they cry out loudly because for once they have to invest some of the money again which they usually cash in from the people like protection money.
no subject
But the trolleybus was not invented at all in the Soviet Union, but in Germany, at the end of the 19th century. The world owes the appearance of the trolleybus to the talented engineer, inventor and entrepreneur Werner von Siemens, the founder of the now well-known company Siemens. His idea was to use a contact network for the transmission of electricity. The very first vehicle using this principle was called the "electric motor" and was introduced by Siemens near Berlin in 1882. It was a four-wheeled cart, where two two-kilowatt electric motors were connected to the rear pair of wheels through a chain drive.
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/pronauka/kto-i-gde-pridumal-trolleibus-5d493ce906cc4600ae84e170 (https://zen.yandex.ru/media/pronauka/kto-i-gde-pridumal-trolleibus-5d493ce906cc4600ae84e170)
no subject
Also, that the concept of the trolleybus is already that old.
(But that's why I asked.)
no subject
Although, I can't tell if that's true.
At least I know that, about 10 years ago, Erfurt still had such ones. I think they had a complete city line that drove in a circle. If you already found your way out to the street of the railway station, the next mean to transport you further into the city that came along was a bus with "antlers". (Strange thing to see, if you don't know that something like that exists.)”
We have trolleybuses at big cities along with all the possible others transport mechanisms working on electricity and this is altogether with a fact that fuel is so cheap in Russia…
Thing is that these electrical mechanisms are really clean for the big cities because electricity is received far away from masses of people as at some nuclear power station as at hydroelectricity station or at some small dirty old cruel fuel stations which are making heavy fumes… But again this fact that trolleybuses are finished at Europe is telling more than anything that European green don’t give a fork about ecology, they are working about somebody's paid agenda…
no subject
In that point, they're equipped with modern technology than the West.
Yeah, and now that you mention it...
Vehicles driven by electric engines in the big cities, used in a widespread manner - indeed, that's a way to get your cities "cleaner", less full of bad air from fuel emissions, without cutting any of the transportation means short.
Well, I've already noticed in several such ways where you deal with technology in detail that the current "Greens" know a shit.
As I said, they're more from any social sciences background than a technological one - so, guess what weighs more in their ranks?
Ideas and dreams, not realities and solving particular problems.
And from castles in the sky, nobody can even buy himself a sandwich. They're useless without any practical way of turning thought into materia.
And that they have a pretty distorted and uneducated image of the past - well, if you're just a bit smart, you recognize that pretty quickly.
All just possessed by American Identity Politics - which suit for no other society than the American one...
no subject
In that point, they're equipped with modern technology than the West.”
We have in Russia all we could dream of, plus our tariffs are still cheap – price for electricity – 0.0692 $ kilowatt per hour, petroleum – 0.6 $ per liter, earth for building a house which is located 70 kilometers from capital where I am living (far cheaper) - 1667 $ per 100 square meters and you could buy as much as you want and so on… Salaries are still low but if you are working on yourself you earn much more than a middle Russian salary – which is 500$...
“And from castles in the sky, nobody can even buy himself a sandwich. They're useless without any practical way of turning thought into materia.”
I am certain that many of them were not finishing any institute… to protest is much more easy than to do something real. Look on the flag of greens nowadays – Gretta and who is surrounds her? ))
“All just possessed by American Identity Politics - which suit for no other society than the American one...”
The strange thing today is that the modern politic of USA now is against all common people and the Americans are not an exception… Just think about the fact that Americans now want to take children from parents and without their will to change their gender – to cut out wombs and dicks and replace them on what? ))) On the plastic copies?! ))) Democrats at USA are the servicemen of Devil no more no less. Look how they are trying to rewrite Bible about all the gay’s shit… It is the last days at least of USA that’s for sure…
no subject
In latter areas, those things are all way more expensive...
I am certain that many of them were not finishing any institute…
Hm, yeah, you can put that question, of course.
The people which have showed up in the environmental activism were the Fridays For Future kids, who all were just school students and still lived with their parents.
Taking that into account - of course, you can claim a lot to happen. It's gonna be the task of other people to turn it into reality.
Additionally, you don't need to rack your brains about your own lifestyle and resource consumption. (Which is what school kids very unlikely do as they're still too your for a broad overview of the topic and they also still lack the consciousness of how their own lifestyle is made possible. They take their Playstation 4s/5s and XBoxes and smartphones all as self-evident and think they're fueled with nothing to run.)
The first activists from the front of that, meanwhile, are at the beginning of the adult years or in their mid 20s.
Just the kind of age, as stated, when you still go to university and only have to care about your own cause (not a family with kids attached too, e. g.).
Of course, one can doubt if these already have any formal graduation certificate in their stock, or if, if they have one in a field which is really relevant for talking big in terms "how people need to live in order to soothe climate change".
Greta, I think... she did mean her strike for the climate honestly, but what she lacked about the whole wave she kicked loose is: Even if maybe educated, she was still a teen and psychologically as well as socially as naive as a teen (addionally socially handicapped by Asperger's, if that is factually true). She started her "war" with symbolic gestures which, in the end, mean nothing to the problem of climate change.
If you really wanna do something, then you'll have to go to war with the whole capitalist system - and this might mean, you'll have to become their arch enemy who they want to assassinate.
Greta, as pretty typical for her generation, thought it's done with just a foot stomp and the adults reacting to her, doing what she demands. Because the adults always reacted to her if she did that and maybe somehow complied with the claims she raised.
World politics doesn't work like this. - Or, if you want to make the politicians of other countries look at you and maybe comply with your claims, then you have to bring up a pretty big foot stomp so that they do that. Something as big as maybe what North Korea has, for example.
no subject
Well what I can say about it… I don’t know, it is strange. As I understand the electricity market the small people never could be a competitor to big electricity holdings, so what to be afraid? It could be just a matter of electricity meter work. For example we have in Russia such option that you could buy a electricity meter or counter which has two regimes of work – day and night, at night the electricity is twice cheaper than at a day, something like that and some people are using it with warming water at a house at night and collecting electricity at accumulators to use it at a day…
But you know the electricity is so cheap at Russia thanks to USSR hard work to making all electrical stations and thanks to Putin he has come to power right in a moment to stop privatization of our electricity corporation… So, I do not bother much about electricity bills as I bother about the greed of our apartment house service and repair company bills, more threatening are only penalties bill on roads which have got out of any comprehension but they are so high to stop endless deaths on roads...
no subject
The thing back then wasn't about becoming a competitor to them, it was about giving people a share of the cake for producing energy that everyone else is able to use in the end. As the energy not used by the small producers had to be taken into the electricity net by the big net owner.
So it was about a potentially growing revolution in the production of electric energy - that suddenly the big energy corporations maybe would soon have to face interest groups made of small people who told them what to do and even demanded a noticeale share of the money they cash in from the customers and (usually) keep entirely to themselves.
So to say: An interest group of many smaller producers of energy could have achieved the amount of electric power that a conventional power plant produced - and made it superfluous.
So that the big energy corporation didn't maintain a power plant and they could lead it in their most "cost-saving" (plundering) way anymore.
Ecologically this would have been a way to go - because, lots of solar panels on the roofs of peoples' houses and blocks with flats, which are floodlighted all over the day anyway, every conventional power plant they could replace in the long term, that didn't have be fueled with coal, gas or nuclear energy, this would have been a good thing!
But no, all of that wasn't supposed to be because big corporations didn't want to share their profits... and rather keep those old power plants that are dependent on fossil fuels.
Now everyone can count the cost of this policy.
no subject
Just think simpler – take your electricity producing as Germany as EU as a whole on percentages – getting by fossil fuel, hydro, wind, sun. Take in account that the long term investments in making wind and solar stations are always the bank credits which are taking their part in a finish price. Take in account the Germany had stopped their coal industry and nearly all their nuclear industry and hence it is buying all fuel from Russia or from else somewhere… And you will get the electricity price you have… Soon, possible, all your electricity industry will be seized by banks because the electricity companies will be demanding more and more credits from banks with the citizens incapability to pay and with the short term working ability – (10 years or little more) of wind and sun electricity stations – in my modest opinion, green bullshit was from the beginning one big lie about the cheap wind - sun energy – one big lie which, for sure, had been a golden mine for banksters and a total disaster for common people… Of course, I am not an expert but I am certain that when you are taking money at a bank for a project which will be profitable after 10 years, if all will be working well, of course, when you will be getting wind, sun and will not have no disasters like fires, floods, you name it… you’d got a loop around your neck… But of course your politicians know better… maybe your German modern motto – to wash four places once a month and tell every time – Get Putin! is a big achievement and suckcess ?! Who knows!?
no subject
And - at the current rate of consumption, it's completely unrealistic to tell oneself that you can make do without fossil fuels. There's just not enough solar panels and not enough windmills you erect to cover all that, not even secure the expected increase in the coming years.
Even in the statistics it becomes visible that all the modern means to create electric energy didn't really replace any of the energy produced by conventional power plants, but they created additional energy to get used up.
So, in other words: Humans even use more electric energy than before because they have found a way to create some more of it without building a dirty power plant that poisons the air they breathe. If those technologies didn't exist, the actual problem - that humans consume too much resources of this planet - would become more visible to them. (Humans somehow harbor a strange way to think - if they can't see dirt with their human eyes, they don't believe dirt to be there.)
From a strategic point, I'd go with the concept that you draw here - use a combination of all of the available means to create electricity.
One thing is: Always keep something stable as a reserve in order to keep the system running. - That would just be fossil fuels; mankind still hasn't found anything different with the same effectivity. It is as it is...
Another factor is: Diversity in energy supply makes you less vulnerable if one mean fails. - This is already a reality if dealing with solar panels through the winter episode. They just don't produce the same amount of energy in that season... You have to compensate that.
Third: I always keep it in the back of my mind that there are areas in the world which have much different climatic conditions than central Europe. In cold areas, you even need the warmth from the fossil fuels or even your power plant freezes.
In much warmer areas, working with electricity a lot might also be complicated as it can tolerate heat only in a small window of conditions (or you need additional measures to cool everything down).
Then you also have areas plagued with floods, droughts, mountain areas... and all that kind of stuff.
Long story short: If wanting to supply yourself with electricity, you'll have to deal with which conditions nature confronts you with and what is the best practical choice regarding that. There is no other way.
And if wanting to make this project "ecologically sustainable living" become reality, you have to find solutions for all places on the earth and not just your personal tiny spot of country you're living in. Nature doesn't care about state borders.
But, a point important to me in all this is: Humans can't step away from their fossil fuels, they even need them to produce their more modern means of energy (solar panels, mills) - and how much a fucking lot that consumes... (Saying, the domestic factory here forged large parts, also the heads, for the electricity wind mills. I have an inner image of what fucking ton of energy that consumes in order to produce one of these things.).
Especially they can't do that with a world population near 8 billion people.
But, to soothen the climate change, they actually had to.
That's a matter of fact. Scientists, even in the West, warned about this since the 70s at least.
No-one wanted to listen to them, now you got the "harvest" of that.
If mankind can't change their high demand for energy and shift the means how to create it, then there need to be much, much fewer humans. Actually: Back to the one billion of humans at the beginning of the industrial age.
Because - this planet isn't the sole property of humans. Other lifeforms also have a right to exist. Other lifeforms even need to exist so that humans can take their share from nature to consume it. Or this share of the cake simply isn't going to exist.
I would wish for mankind to find a still peaceful way to do that reduction...
no subject
I'm against this long-standing tradition of the anthropocentric worldview - which I think is responsible for a lot of these environmental problems these days.
no subject
For me it is not. I am an nearly engineer and I am telling you without any doubt – all this green wind and sun energy shit is big bullshit. It is stupid to receive electricity through the solar panels and use it for warming up your house – you losing more than you receiving. But it is profitable to use the sun water heating panels for this matter as I mentioned. And again, it is much more profitable to use coal, atomic or hydro station for a whole city than to build at an every single flat one small mini electricity station instead – it is stupid…
no subject
Or, if you have suitable devices to do that, then don't take a look onto your meter.
In fossil fuels is such a huge amount of energy, especially warmth, compressed and and concentrated - if you want to beat that with electricity, you're going to break a leg or get broke.
That's really a bad idea...
If for, if wanting to warm something like water, I don't know, hm, this may work easier. You heat it once and try to keep the heated water warm. Like in a water boiler if you want to make youself a cup of tea or a cup of cofee.
It doesn't necessarily have to eat away as constantly as heating does.
no subject
Yes, business is business, it matters to understand who's making business when some youngsters are destroying or stopping your plant today... cause tomorrow will be too late... you will be buying or Chinese goods or buying three times more expensive liquefied gas from USA...
no subject
There are people who dislike coal, so they occupy coal mines and coal power plants.
Then there are some who protest against gas power plants. Either because of the current political situation with your country or because they dislike gas like the first group dislikes coal.
Then you have a third group that has a problem with oil. Wants everything changed to get away from that...
And in the end, all the "alternatives" these groups have to offer are switching away from a certain energy carrier to using more of the other two. Or abandoning them altogether at once.
It's... you know, childish. The matter is spinning in circles. None of any of the three energy carriers is truly "cleaner" than the other. So, exchanging is pointless, as well as giving a certain type of energy carier up just because of a decades-old dogma - because there have been protests against the usage of that energy carrier already one generation of people ago.
This way to act, it seems... well, indeed like groups who are being orchestrated and directed like a 5th column.
Or like people whose parents already held protests and rallies in the 80s in West Germany, and the children got to eat that shit from early on, now pursing the same agenda as adults without any timly update to it.
Or - I think I can put that on the table - this has in fact nothing to with it and these groups of some radical activists are being manipulated into carrying out the sabotage work of a competitor in the same business.
Like when there's constantly some shit going on in and with a peasant's field, and it turns out there's a competitor who wants to acquire the land of the peasant.
Abandoning all of the different fossil fuels would maybe be the correct thing to do in ecological terms, but it's totally unrealistic. As those energy carriers are the driver which actually made this modern life possible. This modern life that enables such people like the activists worry the most about what to study at university instead of keeping a job in order to be able to afford enough food daily, that enables them to travel hundreds of kilometers in just a few hours instead of walking on foot for weks, and that even provides them with the main means these people communicate and coordinate themselves with - smartphones and the internet.
Nobody wanted a downgrade from all that, so this idea can be skipped in an instant...
no subject
I dare to disagree with you
– coal is more dirty than all and now EU is forced to reopen the old coal mines
- Hydro stations are more eco-friendly and not many at EU mass media are telling about this fact
- Atomic stations are second eco-friendly with without any warming atmosphere gases production, and with of course, correct usage – I mean – it is not right to bombard the nuclear power plants as Ukraine army is doing right now – it could lead to a nuclear disaster…
- Gas energy is the third eco-friendly because we do want or not – gas stuck at rapidly warming Siberia frozen lands will get to atmosphere sooner or later anyway and according to scientists will be even more harmful than its burning products – C02 and H2O
- Then come maybe in a row – wind, sun, oil plants if we will count all materials were used on making these mentioned wind, sun plants which are working much more limited time than hydro or nuclear stations consisting mostly from concrete and iron…
“This way to act, it seems... well, indeed like groups who are being orchestrated and directed like a 5th column.
Or like people whose parents already held protests and rallies in the 80s in West Germany, and the children got to eat that shit from early on, now pursing the same agenda as adults without any timly update to it.”
You know, it is maybe not that bad that your not properly educated people are destroying all around. Maybe it is a new circle of history and your society needs it? But these is a problem that it is noticed long ago that such a mechanisms to destabilized society and radicalized it were constantly used before pushing country into a war… First you are making people’s life unbearable and secondly you are telling idiots that – Putin is only to blame – Go get him! So, yes, it is fantastic to wash four places once a month if Germany right now were not participating in a war against Russia, where real people, Russians are dying everyday from Europeans weaponry – they – people of East Ukraine were not making no orange revolution, they were not destroying what their ancestors did in hard work, so why they should suffer?!
no subject
Here, I think, the Harz area contained a lot of dams.
(But, as in days like now where all the rivers dry out from drought, it might also become a bit hairy to use such.)
Small experiments have also been done with thermal energy, but this is something that shouldn't be used too excessively to not cool off the deeper levels of the earth. (Places with volcanic activity where it comes out by itself anyway, there you could make use of it as you'd do no additional harm there.)
Nuclear energy is... well, a sword with two sides.
Of course, being used properly, and maintained properly, you'll gain something from them. But their big, big disadvantage is: Where to put all the fuel rods that are used up? Their radiation lasts longer than mankind continues to exist.
There is no final depot where you can just drop them off and forget about them...
Needless to say, they can't stand in a seismically active area, neither where they can suffer floods, and they need to be placed close to a river of wherever they can get cooling water for the fuel rods from. You can't build them just everywhere.
So... well, it would be better if not being need of them. The risks and the costs if anything happens are too high and too incapable to be paid with money. Additionally, there's no place on earth for the radiocative garbage.
New cycle of history - hm, maybe...
There have always been cycles where people called to throw the old away and forget about it completely because they deemed the old to be the source of current problems, and to break more free from that.
I still haven't made up my mind about it yet, I still continue to observe - and, the best I can sum it up with until now is "it's a time episode of large and wide-scale changes".
Or, to quote a Funker Vogt song "the old time tunnel will explode". This is what currently seems to take place.