+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

  1. Link to Post #1
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    Can nationalism survive the onslaught of rhetoric and lop-sided policies that favour 'minorities' and advocates for a New Liberal World Order?

    Lead by 'multi-national' corporations and directed by the UN, this new order includes many radical methodologies that threaten the survival of hundreds of millions of people.

    Some of these methods include:

    -undermining the family unit
    -eradicating social norms
    -vilifying the energy sector
    -tampering with elections
    -censoring free speech
    -enforcing medical tyranny
    -radicalizing the justice system
    -controlling public discourse
    -character assassination of adversaries
    -cancellation of political opponents
    -withholding pertinent data that conflicts with the 'official' stance
    -constantly injecting emotional content designed to fuel a general fear and terror that short circuits rational debate and discussion

    When radical voices become the mainstay and borders are no longer guarded or defended, when the social fabric is torn asunder and radical 'minorities' riot in the streets, when our source of energy is purposefully curtailed and supply logistics wilfully disrupted, does the idea of 'nation' even have a meaning?

    Are multi-national corporations colluding with the UN and its agendas?
    Has the UN managed to take control of this world?
    Are we soon to see the dissolution of nationhood and the advent of a true one world government?

    What rules do multi-nationals follow? What is the purpose of the UN?

    In light of the above questions: How does nationhood fit into the picture of a 'New World Order'?


    I'm tired of waiting for common sense to reassert itself. It seems it never will.
    How can it when the rational debate it demands cannot take place - and in many places that debate is being made ILLEGAL by 'hate' speech laws and other free speech curtailment like cancel culture or social and news media censorship.

    I want to talk about the elephant in the room!
    I want the world to talk of it.
    We already do in our work places, our private social circles.
    The majority already knows.
    We must get the mike away from the radical 'minorities' that have circumvented our democratic process and undermined our way of life.

    What say you?
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Alecs (2nd July 2022), anasazi (3rd July 2022), ExomatrixTV (2nd July 2022), Franny (1st July 2022), Harmony (2nd July 2022), Sue (Ayt) (1st July 2022), Vangelo (2nd July 2022)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,720
    Thanks
    30,817
    Thanked 125,664 times in 20,818 posts

    Angry Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    * most big corporations are active in multiple countries using cheap "tax havens" and much cheaper (slave & child) labor in poor unhealthy conditions ... all depends how easy it is for them to exploit anything for a buck.

    * most big corporations seek the best way how to bypass national laws & regulations >>> at the same time they (may well) lobby for other types of regulations to destroy the middle-class, thus serving "Agenda2030" and "NetZero2050".

    * when big corporations collude/coerce with corrupt politicians the possibilities abusing their powers are endless >>> and mainstream media is super obvious part of their tyrannical & sinister agenda.

    Our current reality is best summarized with an 20+ years old quote of mine I used many times:

    "we live in a (totally corrupted) world where hijacked governments criminalizing real solutions and legalizing (and/or covering up) corporate crimes against humanity".



    cheers,
    John Kuhles aka 'ExomatrixTV'
    July 2nd, 2022 🦜🦋🌳
    Last edited by ExomatrixTV; 3rd July 2022 at 11:35.
    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    anasazi (3rd July 2022), Ernie Nemeth (2nd July 2022), Harmony (2nd July 2022), Michi (3rd July 2022), Vangelo (2nd July 2022)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    English, Dutch, German, Limburgs
    Age
    57
    Posts
    22,720
    Thanks
    30,817
    Thanked 125,664 times in 20,818 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    No need to follow anyone, only consider broadening (y)our horizon of possibilities ...

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    anasazi (3rd July 2022), Ernie Nemeth (2nd July 2022), Harmony (2nd July 2022), Snoweagle (3rd July 2022)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    The word 'minority' is misleading because it is a word that has been hijacked by the globalists and given a negative, racist connotation.

    Minority is the opposite of majority, and has no other meaning. It is not a skin colour or a race or a nation. It simply means 'a small group'.

    'Radical minority', then, is a small group that holds an opinion the majority considers 'fringe' or 'extreme'.

    'Majority' can then be defined as those that hold common values commiserate with the values and of a nation's founding.

    In today's world, the minority of radical Liberals and their far-left leaning values has hi-jacked the public discourse and silenced the majority by using the highly divisive radical ideology of race and skin colour.
    By silencing the majority, the radical minority have managed to implement extremely radical policies that threaten to undermine the hard work and dedication of millions of people who came before them and carved their countries out of the wilderness.

    The ideology of the 'woke' has been radically altered by our places of higher learning, corporate sponsorship, media censorship, and by politicalizing the young.

    It is further radicalized by injecting fear and hate into the equation, thereby fostering a knee-jerk response devoid of reason. Facts are merely a hindrance to this ideology and common sense is considered a racist tactic to undermine the resolve of the radicals.

    Global Climate Change and Systemic Racism are the main pillars of this radical ideology that seeks to destroy the world order and replace it with a radical injunction against anything familiar or anything taken for granted as common ground.

    Our world is being taken apart brick by brick. And we now see just how precarious our lives have become because of our complacency.

    Our apathy has caught up with us. It now threatens to consume us all.

    We must act. We must hold the line. We must push back. We must say how we feel and express what we want in clear and concise language.

    We are the majority and we must have our voices heard!
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    anasazi (3rd July 2022), ExomatrixTV (2nd July 2022), Harmony (3rd July 2022), Vangelo (3rd July 2022)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Australia Moderator Harmony's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th May 2020
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,610
    Thanks
    92,100
    Thanked 18,754 times in 2,614 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    Everything you are saying has real meaning. Another thing that bothers me is that the minority groups are cherry picked for use in their agenda. I don't see any support for the so called fringe "anti- vaxxers" if they are a minority group needing to be heard. Or groups not happy with technocracy.



    Quote It is further radicalized by injecting fear and hate into the equation, thereby fostering a knee-jerk response devoid of reason. Facts are merely a hindrance to this ideology and common sense is considered a racist tactic to undermine the resolve of the radicals.
    This does seem to be what is happening, and not really trying to fix the problems that are symptoms of our systems needing to be tweaked with the changing times, not destroyed. Most don't even know that they are playing into the technocracy elites hands, but it is becoming more and more evident, hopefully.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Harmony For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (3rd July 2022), Vangelo (3rd July 2022)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Age
    58
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4,661
    Thanked 13,266 times in 2,725 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    People is not talking but belief system changes is silently taking place. Once people starts talking its too late for the controllers to stop the tide

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bubu For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (3rd July 2022), ExomatrixTV (4th July 2022), Harmony (3rd July 2022)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    This is the Ted Talk transcript:
    Bill Gates: Innovating to Zero
    https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero

    If you read this talk carefully, you will understand what is happening in the world today. The mechinations and intrigue in the world are a direct result of this talk. The video really makes it clear but it will not load properly.

    There is not a lot that can be done about the direction the world is headed...except reduce the population...and force the world to use alternate sources of energy
    ...

    underlines added for clarity


    I'm going to talk today about energy and climate. And that might seem a bit surprising, because my full-time work at the foundation is mostly about vaccines and seeds, about the things that we need to invent and deliver to help the poorest two billion live better lives. But energy and climate are extremely important to these people; in fact, more important than to anyone else on the planet. The climate getting worse means that many years, their crops won't grow: there will be too much rain, not enough rain; things will change in ways their fragile environment simply can't support. And that leads to starvation, it leads to uncertainty, it leads to unrest. So, the climate changes will be terrible for them.

    Also, the price of energy is very important to them. In fact, if you could pick just one thing to lower the price of to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy. Now, the price of energy has come down over time. Really advanced civilization is based on advances in energy. The coal revolution fueled the Industrial Revolution, and, even in the 1900s, we've seen a very rapid decline in the price of electricity, and that's why we have refrigerators, air-conditioning; we can make modern materials and do so many things. And so, we're in a wonderful situation with electricity in the rich world. But as we make it cheaper -- and let's say, let's go for making it twice as cheap -- we need to meet a new constraint, and that constraint has to do with CO2.
    CO2 is warming the planet, and the equation on CO2 is actually a very straightforward one. If you sum up the CO2 that gets emitted, that leads to a temperature increase, and that temperature increase leads to some very negative effects: the effects on the weather; perhaps worse, the indirect effects, in that the natural ecosystems can't adjust to these rapid changes, and so you get ecosystem collapses.

    Now, the exact amount of how you map from a certain increase of CO2 to what temperature will be, and where the positive feedbacks are -- there's some uncertainty there, but not very much. And there's certainly uncertainty about how bad those effects will be, but they will be extremely bad. I asked the top scientists on this several times: Do we really have to get down to near zero? Can't we just cut it in half or a quarter? And the answer is, until we get near to zero, the temperature will continue to rise. And so that's a big challenge. It's very different than saying, "We're a twelve-foot-high truck trying to get under a ten-foot bridge, and we can just sort of squeeze under." This is something that has to get to zero.

    Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year -- over 26 billion tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero. It's been constantly going up. It's only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all, so we have to go from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero.

    This equation has four factors, a little bit of multiplication. So you've got a thing on the left, CO2, that you want to get to zero, and that's going to be based on the number of people, the services each person is using on average, the energy, on average, for each service, and the CO2 being put out per unit of energy. So let's look at each one of these, and see how we can get this down to zero. Probably, one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.
    (Laughter)

    That's back from high school algebra. But let's take a look.

    First, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3.

    The second factor is the services we use. This encompasses everything: the food we eat, clothing, TV, heating. These are very good things. Getting rid of poverty means providing these services to almost everyone on the planet. And it's a great thing for this number to go up. In the rich world, perhaps the top one billion, we probably could cut back and use less, but every year, this number, on average, is going to go up, and so, overall, that will more than double the services delivered per person. Here we have a very basic service: Do you have lighting in your house to be able to read your homework? And, in fact, these kids don't, so they're going out and reading their schoolwork under the street lamps.

    Now, efficiency, "E," the energy for each service -- here, finally we have some good news. We have something that's not going up. Through various inventions and new ways of doing lighting, through different types of cars, different ways of building buildings -- there are a lot of services where you can bring the energy for that service down quite substantially. Some individual services even bring it down by 90 percent. There are other services, like how we make fertilizer, or how we do air transport, where the rooms for improvement are far, far less. And so overall, if we're optimistic, we may get a reduction of a factor of three to even, perhaps, a factor of six. But for these first three factors now, we've gone from 26 billion to, at best, maybe 13 billion tons, and that just won't cut it.

    So let's look at this fourth factor -- this is going to be a key one -- and this is the amount of CO2 put out per each unit of energy. So the question is: Can you actually get that to zero? If you burn coal, no. If you burn natural gas, no. Almost every way we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale, is create a new system. So we need energy miracles.

    Now, when I use the term "miracle," I don't mean something that's impossible. The microprocessor is a miracle. The personal computer is a miracle. The Internet and its services are a miracle. So the people here have participated in the creation of many miracles. Usually, we don't have a deadline where you have to get the miracle by a certain date. Usually, you just kind of stand by, and some come along, some don't. This is a case where we actually have to drive at full speed and get a miracle in a pretty tight timeline.

    Now, I thought, "How could I really capture this? Is there some kind of natural illustration, some demonstration that would grab people's imagination here?" I thought back to a year ago when I brought mosquitoes, and somehow people enjoyed that.
    (Laughter)

    It really got them involved in the idea of, you know, there are people who live with mosquitoes. With energy, all I could come up with is this. I decided that releasing fireflies would be my contribution to the environment here this year. So here we have some natural fireflies. I'm told they don't bite; in fact, they might not even leave that jar.
    (Laughter)

    Now, there's all sorts of gimmicky solutions like that one, but they don't really add up to much. We need solutions, either one or several, that have unbelievable scale and unbelievable reliability. And although there's many directions that people are seeking, I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers. I've left out tide, geothermal, fusion, biofuels. Those may make some contribution, and if they can do better than I expect, so much the better. But my key point here is that we're going to have to work on each of these five, and we can't give up any of them because they look daunting, because they all have significant challenges.

    Let's look first at burning fossil fuels, either burning coal or burning natural gas. What you need to do there seems like it might be simple, but it's not. And that's to take all the CO2, after you've burned it, going out the flue, pressurize it, create a liquid, put it somewhere, and hope it stays there. Now, we have some pilot things that do this at the 60 to 80 percent level. But getting up to that full percentage -- that will be very tricky. And agreeing on where these CO2 quantities should be put will be hard, but the toughest one here is this long-term issue: Who's going to be sure? Who's going to guarantee something that is literally billions of times larger than any type of waste you think of in terms of nuclear or other things? This is a lot of volume. So that's a tough one.

    Next would be nuclear. It also has three big problems: cost, particularly in highly regulated countries, is high; the issue of safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have these human operators, the fuel doesn't get used for weapons. And then what do you do with the waste? Although it's not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it. So three very tough problems that might be solvable, and so, should be worked on.

    The last three of the five, I've grouped together. These are what people often refer to as the renewable sources. And they actually -- although it's great they don't require fuel -- they have some disadvantages. One is that the density of energy gathered in these technologies is dramatically less than a power plant. This is energy farming, so you're talking about many square miles, thousands of times more area than you think of as a normal energy plant. Also, these are intermittent sources. The sun doesn't shine all day, it doesn't shine every day, and likewise, the wind doesn't blow all the time. And so, if you depend on these sources, you have to have some way of getting the energy during those time periods that it's not available. So we've got big cost challenges here. We have transmission challenges; for example, say this energy source is outside your country, you not only need the technology, but you have to deal with the risk of the energy coming from elsewhere.
    And, finally, this storage problem. To dimensionalize this, I went through and looked at all the types of batteries made -- for cars, for computers, for phones, for flashlights, for everything -- and compared that to the amount of electrical energy the world uses. What I found is that all the batteries we make now could store less than 10 minutes of all the energy. And so, in fact, we need a big breakthrough here, something that's going to be a factor of 100 better than the approaches we have now. It's not impossible, but it's not a very easy thing. Now, this shows up when you try to get the intermittent source to be above, say, 20 to 30 percent of what you're using. If you're counting on it for 100 percent, you need an incredible miracle battery.

    Now, how are we going to go forward on this -- what's the right approach? Is it a Manhattan Project? What's the thing that can get us there? Well, we need lots of companies working on this -- hundreds. In each of these five paths, we need at least a hundred people. A lot of them, you'll look at and say, "They're crazy." That's good. And, I think, here in the TED group, we have many people who are already pursuing this.

    Bill Gross has several companies, including one called eSolar that has some great solar thermal technologies. Vinod Khosla is investing in dozens of companies that are doing great things and have interesting possibilities, and I'm trying to help back that. Nathan Myhrvold and I actually are backing a company that, perhaps surprisingly, is actually taking the nuclear approach. There are some innovations in nuclear: modular, liquid. Innovation really stopped in this industry quite some ago, so the idea that there's some good ideas laying around is not all that surprising.

    The idea of TerraPower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium -- the one percent, which is the U235 -- we decided, "Let's burn the 99 percent, the U238." It is kind of a crazy idea. In fact, people had talked about it for a long time, but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not, and so it's through the advent of modern supercomputers that now you can simulate and see that, yes, with the right materials approach, this looks like it would work.
    And because you're burning that 99 percent, you have greatly improved cost profile. You actually burn up the waste, and you can actually use as fuel all the leftover waste from today's reactors. So instead of worrying about them, you just take that, it's a great thing.

    It breeds this uranium as it goes along, so it's kind of like a candle. You see it's a log there, often referred to as a traveling wave reactor. In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem. I've got a picture here of a place in Kentucky. This is the leftover, the 99 percent, where they've taken out the part they burn now, so it's called depleted uranium. That would power the US for hundreds of years. And simply by filtering seawater in an inexpensive process, you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet.

    So, you know, it's got lots of challenges ahead, but it is an example of the many hundreds and hundreds of ideas that we need to move forward.

    So let's think: How should we measure ourselves? What should our report card look like?

    Well, let's go out to where we really need to get, and then look at the intermediate. For 2050, you've heard many people talk about this 80 percent reduction. That really is very important, that we get there.

    And that 20 percent will be used up by things going on in poor countries -- still some agriculture; hopefully, we will have cleaned up forestry, cement.

    So, to get to that 80 percent, the developed countries, including countries like China, will have had to switch their electricity generation altogether. The other grade is: Are we deploying this zero-emission technology, have we deployed it in all the developed countries and are in the process of getting it elsewhere? That's super important. That's a key element of making that report card.

    Backing up from there, what should the 2020 report card look like? Well, again, it should have the two elements. We should go through these efficiency measures to start getting reductions: The less we emit, the less that sum will be of CO2, and therefore, the less the temperature. But in some ways, the grade we get there, doing things that don't get us all the way to the big reductions, is only equally, or maybe even slightly less, important than the other, which is the piece of innovation on these breakthroughs.

    These breakthroughs, we need to move those at full speed, and we can measure that in terms of companies, pilot projects, regulatory things that have been changed. There's a lot of great books that have been written about this. The Al Gore book, "Our Choice," and the David MacKay book, "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air." They really go through it and create a framework that this can be discussed broadly, because we need broad backing for this. There's a lot that has to come together.

    So this is a wish. It's a very concrete wish that we invent this technology. If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years -- I could pick who's president, I could pick a vaccine, which is something I love, or I could pick that this thing that's half the cost with no CO2 gets invented -- this is the wish I would pick. This is the one with the greatest impact. If we don't get this wish, the division between the people who think short term and long term will be terrible, between the US and China, between poor countries and rich, and most of all, the lives of those two billion will be far worse.

    So what do we have to do? What am I appealing to you to step forward and drive? We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together in places like Copenhagen, they shouldn't just discuss the CO2. They should discuss this innovation agenda. You'd be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spending on these innovative approaches. We do need the market incentives -- CO2 tax, cap and trade -- something that gets that price signal out there. We need to get the message out. We need to have this dialogue be a more rational, more understandable dialogue, including the steps that the government takes. This is an important wish, but it is one I think we can achieve.

    Thank you.
    (Applause) (Applause ends)
    Thank you.
    Chris Anderson: Thank you. Thank you.
    (Applause)

    CA: Thank you. So to understand more about TerraPower. I mean, first of all, can you give a sense of what scale of investment this is?

    Bill Gates: To actually do the software, buy the supercomputer, hire all the great scientists, which we've done, that's only tens of millions. And even once we test our materials out in a Russian reactor to make sure our materials work properly, then you'll only be up in the hundreds of millions. The tough thing is building the pilot reactor -- finding the several billion, finding the regulator, the location that will actually build the first one of these. Once you get the first one built, if it works as advertised, then it's just clear as day, because the economics, the energy density, are so different than nuclear as we know it.

    CA: So to understand it right, this involves building deep into the ground, almost like a vertical column of nuclear fuel, of this spent uranium, and then the process starts at the top and kind of works down?

    BG: That's right. Today, you're always refueling the reactor, so you have lots of people and lots of controls that can go wrong, where you're opening it up and moving things in and out -- that's not good. So if you have very --
    (Laughter)
    very cheap fuel that you can put 60 years in -- just think of it as a log -- put it down and not have those same complexities. And it just sits there and burns for the 60 years, and then it's done.

    CA: It's a nuclear power plant that is its own waste disposal solution.

    BG: Yeah; what happens with the waste, you can let it sit there -- there's a lot less waste under this approach -- then you can actually take that and put it into another one and burn that. And we start out, actually, by taking the waste that exists today that's sitting in these cooling pools or dry-casking by reactors -- that's our fuel to begin with. So the thing that's been a problem from those reactors is actually what gets fed into ours, and you're reducing the volume of the waste quite dramatically as you're going through this process.

    CA: You're talking to different people around the world about the possibilities. Where is there most interest in actually doing something with this?

    BG: Well, we haven't picked a particular place, and there's all these interesting disclosure rules about anything that's called "nuclear." So we've got a lot of interest. People from the company have been in Russia, India, China. I've been back seeing the secretary of energy here, talking about how this fits into the energy agenda. So I'm optimistic. The French and Japanese have done some work. This is a variant on something that has been done. It's an important advance, but it's like a fast reactor, and a lot of countries have built them, so anybody who's done a fast reactor is a candidate to be where the first one gets built.

    CA: So, in your mind, timescale and likelihood of actually taking something like this live?

    BG: Well, we need -- for one of these high-scale, electro-generation things that's very cheap, we have 20 years to invent and then 20 years to deploy. That's sort of the deadline that the environmental models have shown us that we have to meet. And TerraPower -- if things go well, which is wishing for a lot -- could easily meet that. And there are, fortunately now, dozens of companies -- we need it to be hundreds -- who, likewise, if their science goes well, if the funding for their pilot plants goes well, that they can compete for this. And it's best if multiple succeed, because then you could use a mix of these things. We certainly need one to succeed.

    CA: In terms of big-scale possible game changers, is this the biggest that you're aware of out there?

    BG: An energy breakthrough is the most important thing. It would have been, even without the environmental constraint, but the environmental constraint just makes it so much greater. In the nuclear space, there are other innovators. You know, we don't know their work as well as we know this one, but the modular people, that's a different approach. There's a liquid-type reactor, which seems a little hard, but maybe they say that about us. And so, there are different ones, but the beauty of this is a molecule of uranium has a million times as much energy as a molecule of, say, coal. And so, if you can deal with the negatives, which are essentially the radiation, the footprint and cost, the potential, in terms of effect on land and various things, is almost in a class of its own.

    CA: If this doesn't work, then what? Do we have to start taking emergency measures to try and keep the temperature of the earth stable?

    BG: If you get into that situation, it's like if you've been overeating, and you're about to have a heart attack. Then where do you go? You may need heart surgery or something. There is a line of research on what's called geoengineering, which are various techniques that would delay the heating to buy us 20 or 30 years to get our act together. Now, that's just an insurance policy; you hope you don't need to do that. Some people say you shouldn't even work on the insurance policy because it might make you lazy, that you'll keep eating because you know heart surgery will be there to save you. I'm not sure that's wise, given the importance of the problem, but there's now the geoengineering discussion about: Should that be in the back pocket in case things happen faster, or this innovation goes a lot slower than we expect?

    CA: Climate skeptics: If you had a sentence or two to say to them, how might you persuade them that they're wrong?

    BG: Well, unfortunately, the skeptics come in different camps. The ones who make scientific arguments are very few. Are they saying there's negative feedback effects that have to do with clouds that offset things? There are very, very few things that they can even say there's a chance in a million of those things. The main problem we have here -- it's kind of like with AIDS: you make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later.
    And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems, the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later, and a somewhat uncertain pain thing. In fact, the IPCC report -- that's not necessarily the worst case, and there are people in the rich world who look at IPCC and say, "OK, that isn't that big of a deal." The fact is it's that uncertain part that should move us towards this. But my dream here is that, if you can make it economic, and meet the CO2 constraints, then the skeptics say, "OK, I don't care that it doesn't put out CO2, I kind of wish it did put out CO2. But I guess I'll accept it, because it's cheaper than what's come before."
    (Applause)

    CA: So that would be your response to the Bjørn Lomborg argument, basically if you spend all this energy trying to solve the CO2 problem, it's going to take away all your other goals of trying to rid the world of poverty and malaria and so forth, it's a stupid waste of the Earth's resources to put money towards that when there are better things we can do.

    BG: Well, the actual spending on the R&D piece -- say the US should spend 10 billion a year more than it is right now -- it's not that dramatic. It shouldn't take away from other things. The thing you get into big money on, and reasonable people can disagree, is when you have something that's non-economic and you're trying to fund that -- that, to me, mostly is a waste. Unless you're very close, and you're just funding the learning curve and it's going to get very cheap, I believe we should try more things that have a potential to be far less expensive. If the trade-off you get into is, "Let's make energy super expensive," then the rich can afford that. I mean, all of us here could pay five times as much for our energy and not change our lifestyle. The disaster is for that two billion.
    And even Lomborg has changed. His shtick now is, "Why isn't the R&D getting more discussed?" He's still, because of his earlier stuff, still associated with the skeptic camp, but he's realized that's a pretty lonely camp, and so, he's making the R&D point. And so there is a thread of something that I think is appropriate. The R&D piece -- it's crazy how little it's funded.

    CA: Well, Bill, I suspect I speak on behalf of most people here to say I really hope your wish comes true. Thank you so much.
    BG: Thank you.
    (Applause)
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 3rd July 2022 at 17:06.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    ExomatrixTV (4th July 2022), Harmony (4th July 2022), Vangelo (4th July 2022)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    Corporatism is a dictatorial top-down economic design that very much resembles China's ideology in terms of national leadership.

    This is the reason that corporations and China are in collusion to eliminate all national borders. Corporations answer to no one country and China seeks to impose its totalitarian agenda upon the world.

    Orchestrated by factions within the UN, and implemented by various UN controlled organizations, the countries of the world are being herded into the fold by strong-arm tactics ranging from political maneuvering to economic leveraging to radical forced regime change, and everything in between. The WEF and WHO lead the way to this New World Order, where governments of the world will cow-tow to the whims and whimsies of a small group of very powerful masters that will rule by decree.


    To this radical bunch of would-be potentates, the human race is a distasteful evil they must still put up with until such time that an acceptable replacement can be designed. This is the 'trans-humanist' crowd, whose goal is to replace the human race, first by augmentation and then by robotics. The augmentation will be mechanical technology that mimics the various body parts but adds better design limitations. The robotics will put these 'parts' together and remove the need for the human 'driver' altogether through the implementation of AI. In other words, the human family is participating in the design perfection of their own demise.

    The end goal is to eliminate 99.99% of the human race, leaving a mere handful of humans ruling a world of robotic slaves that will cater to their every selfish need and want...and to eventually find a way to transfer their conscious minds into their machines and achieve the penultimate goal of effectual immortality.


    This is the secret goal of corporatism, adhering to the maxim: maximize profit. Or to put it succinctly: remove all competition and resistance to hegemony.


    This is also the goal of the UN put another way: eliminate the idea of nationalism by disrupting cultural and social norms and mixing the peoples of the world into a homogenous, race-free, androgynous, under-class of modern serfs.
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 13th August 2022 at 14:38.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  16. Link to Post #9
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    2,616
    Thanks
    2,694
    Thanked 13,330 times in 2,365 posts

    Default Re: Can Corporatism and Nationalism co-exist?

    Mussolini and Hitler seemed to think so.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (2nd September 2022)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts