matrixmann: (Somebody called me?)
...One thing that all people being tempted with electromobility need to reconsider: The age where one general technology can be used all over the planet is over. There are too many people who are in need of using an automated vehicle in any kind - and whether this is fueled by fossil energy sources or electricity or even water, it doesn't change the fact that these many people daily consume a substance and produce waste along with it. This needed amount to consume must be produced anywhere and doesn't drop from the sky!
Producing electric energy in this category of masses is no cleaner than burning rotten dinosaurs and plants! Needless to say: It doesn't make a general price for electric energy drop around the world!
You thought that somebody of the reigning system currently would do that for you - or for anybody in the poor part of India?

If you rely on one source of energy supply, strategy lessons already tell: It makes you vulnerable to people disturbing that circle.
This as the first thing, then go on with the second: While technology must be able to take the outside circumstance of the climate zones you want to erect it in, also you need to make sure that the new technology is accessible to all the people who used the previous one. Or your fucking logistic system of the days before breaks down.
Wishing alone doesn't donate power poles to Africa, neither does it gift them power stations!
And third: What do you think how all that energy gets produced that also needs to share its purpose with you wanting three computers, a mobile telephone with computer functions, a big TV and intelligent furniture in your household? Only because people drive electric cars, they don't give up the rest of their equipment they want to afford themselves...
So, where's the crap supposed to come from? From energy suppliers who boycott solar energy 'cause they don't want cooperatives owning photo voltaic cells on their roofs to supply energy as a collective to them to distribute? From power suppliers who take their sweet time to link one windmill in the Baltic Sea to the power energy grid? From "producers" who don't want to change anything in their system - who don't want to share profit, who don't want to work the slightest bit in the interest of the rest of mankind? Who just say goodbye and disappear, leaving you without supply, if something isn't as attractive to them anymore?

You're pretty naive in thinking just change the materia that supplies energy and all of mankind's problems with mobility producing waste will be solved...
Ever heard about "diversity" not in the social meaning?
'Cause that's what you need here. Each place of the earth using its own method of producing energy, adapted to the circumstances the local surroundings offer.
Wouldn't that be better than trying for another time to make nature fit into the concepts mankind has thought up in its fairy tale fantasies in its stupid little bird brain?

Goddamn drop that idea of all places in the world being the same, people living under the same circumstances and being equally rich everywhere!
'Cause that is what your "one energy source"-concept is based upon! It works only where people have nearly the same circumstances around and where all people can afford that crap. And this will be the first world, just like always!
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Green activists of today - what do you still want protesting and invading coal-fired power stations or blocking convoys that transport nuclear waste from nuclear power stations to final disposal sites?
What is it that you see in this? Aren't there already environmental threads that deserve as much attention as these old dogmas of the Green movement?
At all, what about your own lifestyle? Do you spare to own computers, cars, live without electricity? Do you take care what your furniture is made of? How old it is? Do you live in one and the same flat for 20 years, no matter which way the tide comes?
Do you all produce your own clothes from your home-grown cotton plantation, so that people in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia or China aren't exploited?

Tell you what. If you're so obsessed with your ecologically okay energy production, how about not protesting in front of the fence of some headquarters of a big energy producer - and demanding from him to finally lie down cables to the several windmills build in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea? How about not making it a topic "we got alternatives, only this system doesn't like to change its structures"?
Or, how about not complaining about the behavior of this state that it protects one of their model car fabricants for building software into its cars, so the waste gas quotas are made suitable to the formal guideline?
How about not complaining being promised for 30 years that your car shall eat less and lesser gasoline, but in fact every newer car eats some more than the last?
Or, how about asking for what practice they imagine, when prohibiting all vehicles with conventional combustion engines, but technology is far from being able to offer you a car that can drive a thousand kilometers with one charge?
The only "truck" ever invented with success that can carry weights and cargo over long distances is an electric locomotive! But what is being invested, build and sold to private operators for trial? Streets and highways, no railroad tracks!
How are even your packages from an online retailer of your choice supposed to get to your home, when trucks are being prohibited? By drones?! By those energy eaters who can only carry one bundle at a time?!

What do you think all that comes from that enables you your comfy lifestyle?!
Does it come from swinging a wand in the air and speaking "Hocus pocus...!"?!
Does material get born from pure ideas?! Pure castles in the sky?!
If your forefathers had worked like that, they wouldn't even have been able to achieve sanitary facilities in every flat!
They'd still sit there in poverty, work to death, die from industrial dirt when they're 40 and see 3 of their 5 children dying in the meantime!
Oh, shit, I forgot... The first part already starts to become reality again, only in a bigger cage with more toys to distract and entertain oneself!

Go fry an egg - sort the hell of your own crap and protest again if you have found some good reason for it!
Go and read some books, instead of staying with old dusty dogmas or steadily trying to re-invent the wheel!
Listen to your parents and grandparents, how ecologically okay they could live even though dirty technology existed!
Learn from science that still is from times where ideas haven't been sold like bread - and figure out what things work like! You can even find answers in there for the problems of today!

Most of what you believe in to be the right path is a bunch of old dogmas and nonsense planted into your head by media and NGOs who are being paid for telling you what the world works like instead of making you think yourself!

...And by the way, rechargeable batteries of any kind, also the battery in your smart phone and in your electric car, all of them contain rare earth metals, dug out of the earth, making a few Chinese people die somewhere far away 'cause this shit is poison.
The good Lord didn't let them rain from the sky because you were such well-mannered children of the sun!
If someone ever told you this - he's liar.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
The Matrix is something that is real.
No, you're not stuck in a computer game wired onto you for your life, so you don't notice you're a battery for a machine.

All that you believe in, all that you think is right and wrong, all correlations that exist materially between one and another thing, that is The Matrix.
The way you got taught the path functions like, the way your mind thinks, based on these lessons and experiences, the way the world works like, and the way you believe - loosely based or even melt with these thoughts - the world functions like.
In other words: The imagination in your brain that you have about the world. That is The Matrix. The REAL one.
You don't even need a computer simulation for that as your brain is already capable enough of fooling itself and keeping itself in a dream world that is not as the reality is like.

Materially spoken, this equals as if you believe in gravity and that humans can't jump a 100 meters far, just like in the movie. Only with the difference: The reality surrounds you even though, dictates the base for the impressions your senses make. You can try if the belief in gravity is nonsense, but if it's there, it's gonna strike you dead even though. There is no computer simulation between you and the reality that feels real, but isn't.
The belief in nonsense is gonna bring up consequences for you right away. There's no second try or "Wanna continue?"-question. Dead is dead.

Speaking in terms of which the reality is full of virtual constructs that create a Matrix in your head that exists unconnected to the reality, that becomes a virtual dream world like in the movie,
it's, for example, if the doctor tells you that the pills help, but you feel more and more physically miserable. If you think, in plundering and destroying a supermarket you harm the big players in capitalism. If you assume that hard work alone makes you become someone someday.
Or, if you believe that buying things make you happy. If you think owning a house and a fat car, a spouse and children adding to that, are the universal recipe to make everyone happy. At all, if you think that it's perfectly normal that all people need to be married when they're 30, and so you need to be too. If you think every follower of a religion must wear the visible symbols of this religion just to be a member of this belief.

All of these things that you assume to be true without asking, create The Matrix for your head. The virtual reality you live in, the world which you think is true, but that is only like a full-scale computer simulation.

If you want to awake from it, want to know what is real now and what not, consider: There's no-one like Morpheus who can tell you that this overall thing you got running in your head is a lie. That there is some other reality and this is the one you can hold onto because it's real.
Even reality is only what people discover to be factually wrong, the way it was previously assumed.
There is a lot of factually-based recognitions that can help guiding you on your way, which you can trust because they've been proven to work this way, but it's not like all of reality has been cleared that way already.
In your search for a world whose concept is logic again, you've gotta walk many ways and open up your senses.
The famous question "Why do my eyes hurt?" - "Because you've never used them before." remains vital for all of your existence. And you can't always choose which one becomes the bitter truth for your life. If you got a deadly disease or cancer, you can't also choose to just have a stomach ulcer, can you?

The Matrix is... the cage you lock your own mind in. The prison you set for your own thoughts and feelings. The factual truth that you don't want to see - as well as the weird fantasy you declare for yourself to be true, even though it isn't.

The way out of this is... observing what happens to the left and to the right of yours. Going researching on your own. Wanting to know things exactly. Accepting at all, when something you got taught to be a certain way, is totally wrong factually.
When you don't want to stay with what you've been given as information from the world.
If you notice, things aren't correct that way you got told, and you don't decide for ignoring or blaming yourself for not understanding it or not being able to fit in.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)

World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Is there a different way to win a war than sending troops and artillery?
There is: Do it the subtle way. Destroy the infrastructure, by selling and privatizing, to let your opponent pay off debts that actually don't exist. Erase the ability to do self-catering with home-grown food, introduce the dependence on imports. Carry technology and patents out of the country. If human intelligentsia can't be lured away, make sure they can't make any profit out of their knowledge anymore - forbid them to work in their disciplines, declare graduations and diplomas to be invalid. Abolish law and order and take your sweet time to install yours as the new ones - to let chaos move in, and crime take hold. Additionally, send your own criminals in to fool the masses and to let the daily terror on the streets be perfect. Pump your own wares and goods into the newly acquired territory - to calm down the conquered masses and to make profit yourself; best even is if you let it be accompanied by advertising and propaganda how good it is, how grateful people can be to have it, meanwhile you can do the dirty work to strip them off their assets. While being at the assets: Rearrange the overall property situation. If the pattern makes sense or not, it doesn't matter - the confusion and the gain for your own fraction is the main objective.
At the end of it all, most importantly: Break the morale, the mindset of the people that you annex. Deconstruct the education system and build it anew. Let culture disappear to be never seen again. Kill the spirit of what made these people up! Make sure that way that you're going to be happy with your annexion for the coming decades - 'cause the resistance fades away with the people aging.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Maybe there's a reason why the American establishment wants to colonize Mars so badly: If they can build themselves a shelter on a distant planet, maybe they think "oh, now we can make nuclear war as we want, we don't need to have consideration for anyone anymore - if we want something, we get that something by all means!".
They don't need to care about the destruction anymore, but about the business value.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Plastikbesteck hat den Tellerwäscher gekillt.

Plastic cutlery killed the dishwasher (from "from rags to riches").
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Not all specimen extend to bloom.
In nature, there always grow more than survive in the end.
Well, if mankind achieved to keep them all alive, in conclusion... what did it actually accomplish at all with it?
matrixmann: (I see with the eyes of a hunter)
Lobby groups - grassroots - enterprises - paid suit whores - it's hard to tell the truth between all these things. Everyone works for the well-being of his interests. Even those ones which tell you all the time they want to do something for you. And they grab all nessecary means what it takes to get their interests realized. Be it a group that commits itself to refugees or that campaigns against them - where do you wanna know from if not on both sides money-heavy interest groups stand and want to get their will? Where do you wanna know from if it's a conspiracy theory?
The world is not seperated in angels and devils. Everyone's got his dots on the vest.
All like to make money out of you. They all like to make some profit out of you which gives them power over a part of the world.
It's not like capitalistic habits made their way around civil rights advocacy groups.

September 2017

     1 2 3
45 6789 10
11 1213 141516 17
1819 202122 2324


RSS Atom


Free counters!

Free counters!
Page generated 26 September 2017 05:27 am