I would certainly call you a "Nerd", a title which i carry too, as "a name of honour".
My 40 year career in IT brought me into contact with many Nerds, in the basements of the high rising temples of the Corporations, where they mostly keep the corporations running.
Without those "Nerds" we would not have had the Internet (but also no derivatives).
I assume that the Washington Neocons are working without Nerds in the basements (whistleblowing danger). That would explain their blind race towards the Abyss...
Autism is a creation of Evolution, the Force of Real Change.
I have restarted my work on "The falsifiable hypothesis of the Cause of Autism and the resulting creation of the Autistic Brain. How it starts and develops and how all (most) of the autistic symptoms can/could result from that."
Evolution plays an important role in this and it is influenced by and has influence on the story of humankind in the last 200.000 years (or even a bit more).
But it means too, that i will not react very much in Substack any more. The Social aspect of that work takes too much time causes overstimulation of parts of my brain and i always have the feeling that i could not express what i wanted to.
Creating Tweets from your posts will continue. It is created while reading your posts.
And ofc i might still react on some comments that for me stand out.
There is no such thing as 'man made climate change'.
In the last 2 MM years we have had 17 ice ages; roughly one over 100,000 years It gets cold then it warms up-we are coming out of an ice age so of course the earth gets warmer-till it gets colder again-it's a cycle.
75,000 years ago there only 22 human couples were alive in an ice age. Now we have 8 billion people, obviously, a warmer climate is good for humans.
Finally C02 is good for humans, animals and plants:
"Plants use energy from sunlight to fuse a molecule of CO2 to a molecule of water,
H2 O, to form carbohydrates. One molecule of oxygen O2 is released to the air for each
CO2 molecule removed. Biological machinery of plants reworks the carbohydrate
polymers into proteins, oils and other molecules of life. Every living creature, from
the blooming rose, to the newborn baby, is made of carbon from former atmospheric
CO2 molecules. Long-dead plants used CO2 from ancient atmospheres to produce
most of the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas that have transformed the life of
most humans – moving from drudgery and near starvation before the industrial
revolution to the rising potential for abundance today.
The fraction of the beneficial molecule CO2 in the current atmosphere is tiny,
about 0.04% by volume. This level is about 30% larger than pre-industrial levels in
1800. But today’s levels are still much smaller than the levels, 0.20% or more, that
prevailed over much of geological history. CO2 levels during the past tens of millions
of years have been much closer to starvation levels, 0.015%, when many plants die,
than to the much higher levels that most plants prefer. Basic physics implies that
more atmospheric CO2 will increase greenhouse warming.
However, atmospheric processes are so complicated that the amount of
warming cannot be reliably predicted from first principles. Recent observations of
the atmosphere and oceans, together with geological history, point to very modest
warming, about 1 C (1.8 F) if atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled.
Observations also show no significant change in extreme weather, tornadoes,
hurricanes, floods, or droughts. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as in
centuries past. A few degrees of warming will have many benefits, longer growing
seasons and less winter heating expenses. And this will be in addition to major
benefits to agriculture.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is not an unprecedented experiment with an
unpredictable outcome. The Earth has done the experiment many times in the
geological past. Life flourished abundantly on land and in the oceans at much larger
CO2 levels than those today. Responsible use of fossil fuels, with cost-effective
control of genuine pollutants like fly ash or oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, will be a
My problem with the climate change narrative is its obsessive focus on CO2 and methane. I grew up on a small family farm--long defunct. When I contrast how we operated versus how my grandfather and great-grandfather farmed, one can see in retrospect the trajectory was fighting against nature's symbiosis in the march toward what we now call big ag. Our efforts should be focused on healthy soil, water and air. Surely, that cannot be controversial, yet all are degrading year on year. I suppose the air, on one level, has received some attention simply because of the obvious and immediate health degradation heavy polluted air causes. But top soils wash away and take our toxic chemicals with them. Plastics (micro and otherwise) are in our waters by the tons. If there is progress on this front, it is certainly not sufficient to the task. Glyphosate laces our industrial foods. We get fatter, stupider, more chronically ill, yet can't be inconvenienced long enough to change how we live. We are not only at war with our enemies. We are at war with ourselves. Three cheers to the few in the regenerative agriculture space who are trying to bring us back to what my great-grandfather knew and practiced well enough--nature's symbiosis.
Climate change happens naturally as you say. And there is much debate about the climate change we are experiencing. However, CO2 levels and temperatures are just two factors in a complex biosystem -- creating a viable biosphere. Human populations are simply too large and we are disrupting the ecosystem and therefore changing the character of the biosphere. Nature usually controls such things through extinction events.
Might be worthwhile to connect with Brett Weinstein at Darkhorse Podcast. You work with similar themes.
I'd not count on China and Russia helping long term. Orthodox Christianity good, sure. My thinking is that we are really dealing with resource limits and Russia (in particular) is so rich perhaps it pushes back the crisis by a decade or two. China, more collectivist, might be able to cope with the conflicts longer. Anyway, I'm mostly thinking this is a biological emergent property: your "too many animals in a cage".
Thank you Julian.
I would certainly call you a "Nerd", a title which i carry too, as "a name of honour".
My 40 year career in IT brought me into contact with many Nerds, in the basements of the high rising temples of the Corporations, where they mostly keep the corporations running.
Without those "Nerds" we would not have had the Internet (but also no derivatives).
I assume that the Washington Neocons are working without Nerds in the basements (whistleblowing danger). That would explain their blind race towards the Abyss...
Autism is a creation of Evolution, the Force of Real Change.
I have restarted my work on "The falsifiable hypothesis of the Cause of Autism and the resulting creation of the Autistic Brain. How it starts and develops and how all (most) of the autistic symptoms can/could result from that."
Evolution plays an important role in this and it is influenced by and has influence on the story of humankind in the last 200.000 years (or even a bit more).
But it means too, that i will not react very much in Substack any more. The Social aspect of that work takes too much time causes overstimulation of parts of my brain and i always have the feeling that i could not express what i wanted to.
Creating Tweets from your posts will continue. It is created while reading your posts.
And ofc i might still react on some comments that for me stand out.
Keep on doing the good work !
Sander
->https://www.occupyschagen.nl/Aut/Autism-1.jpg
This stupid cat itself is a symbol of overshoot. Endangered are thousands of species around the cat.
Are we "endangered" or are we "evolving"? Those who don't evolve are surely endangered of not existing much longer.
To evolve us be yourself and leave the intellectual crowd to work out the why in another million years by actually observing things.
You’ll never be lost as you wander then.
We evolved through dramatic climate change and now socially we’ve gone exponentially.
Agriculture wasn’t possible until 10,000 years and the intellectuals say we invented it ,LOL.😂
Be in the now as Laurence Ferlinghetti wrote about.
Enjoy!
Decide to live instead of worry!
There is no such thing as 'man made climate change'.
In the last 2 MM years we have had 17 ice ages; roughly one over 100,000 years It gets cold then it warms up-we are coming out of an ice age so of course the earth gets warmer-till it gets colder again-it's a cycle.
75,000 years ago there only 22 human couples were alive in an ice age. Now we have 8 billion people, obviously, a warmer climate is good for humans.
Finally C02 is good for humans, animals and plants:
"Plants use energy from sunlight to fuse a molecule of CO2 to a molecule of water,
H2 O, to form carbohydrates. One molecule of oxygen O2 is released to the air for each
CO2 molecule removed. Biological machinery of plants reworks the carbohydrate
polymers into proteins, oils and other molecules of life. Every living creature, from
the blooming rose, to the newborn baby, is made of carbon from former atmospheric
CO2 molecules. Long-dead plants used CO2 from ancient atmospheres to produce
most of the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas that have transformed the life of
most humans – moving from drudgery and near starvation before the industrial
revolution to the rising potential for abundance today.
The fraction of the beneficial molecule CO2 in the current atmosphere is tiny,
about 0.04% by volume. This level is about 30% larger than pre-industrial levels in
1800. But today’s levels are still much smaller than the levels, 0.20% or more, that
prevailed over much of geological history. CO2 levels during the past tens of millions
of years have been much closer to starvation levels, 0.015%, when many plants die,
than to the much higher levels that most plants prefer. Basic physics implies that
more atmospheric CO2 will increase greenhouse warming.
However, atmospheric processes are so complicated that the amount of
warming cannot be reliably predicted from first principles. Recent observations of
the atmosphere and oceans, together with geological history, point to very modest
warming, about 1 C (1.8 F) if atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled.
Observations also show no significant change in extreme weather, tornadoes,
hurricanes, floods, or droughts. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as in
centuries past. A few degrees of warming will have many benefits, longer growing
seasons and less winter heating expenses. And this will be in addition to major
benefits to agriculture.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is not an unprecedented experiment with an
unpredictable outcome. The Earth has done the experiment many times in the
geological past. Life flourished abundantly on land and in the oceans at much larger
CO2 levels than those today. Responsible use of fossil fuels, with cost-effective
control of genuine pollutants like fly ash or oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, will be a
major benefit for the world. (1)"
My problem with the climate change narrative is its obsessive focus on CO2 and methane. I grew up on a small family farm--long defunct. When I contrast how we operated versus how my grandfather and great-grandfather farmed, one can see in retrospect the trajectory was fighting against nature's symbiosis in the march toward what we now call big ag. Our efforts should be focused on healthy soil, water and air. Surely, that cannot be controversial, yet all are degrading year on year. I suppose the air, on one level, has received some attention simply because of the obvious and immediate health degradation heavy polluted air causes. But top soils wash away and take our toxic chemicals with them. Plastics (micro and otherwise) are in our waters by the tons. If there is progress on this front, it is certainly not sufficient to the task. Glyphosate laces our industrial foods. We get fatter, stupider, more chronically ill, yet can't be inconvenienced long enough to change how we live. We are not only at war with our enemies. We are at war with ourselves. Three cheers to the few in the regenerative agriculture space who are trying to bring us back to what my great-grandfather knew and practiced well enough--nature's symbiosis.
Climate change happens naturally as you say. And there is much debate about the climate change we are experiencing. However, CO2 levels and temperatures are just two factors in a complex biosystem -- creating a viable biosphere. Human populations are simply too large and we are disrupting the ecosystem and therefore changing the character of the biosphere. Nature usually controls such things through extinction events.
Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/emissions-gaza-israel-hamas-war-climate-change#:~:text=Even%20without%20comprehensive%20data%2C%20one,aviation%20and%20shipping%20industries%20combined
Israel waging war on women and children and nature itself,
Below the source if anyone is interested. :
1. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC7C4946-11A3-4967-BF28-8D0386608D3E
Yes, I have read it.
Might be worthwhile to connect with Brett Weinstein at Darkhorse Podcast. You work with similar themes.
I'd not count on China and Russia helping long term. Orthodox Christianity good, sure. My thinking is that we are really dealing with resource limits and Russia (in particular) is so rich perhaps it pushes back the crisis by a decade or two. China, more collectivist, might be able to cope with the conflicts longer. Anyway, I'm mostly thinking this is a biological emergent property: your "too many animals in a cage".
Will Russia and China help? Giovanni Arrighi thinks so. Why? You have to read my special article that!