WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As I noted in the previous post, last weekend, I met with an environmental scientist reaching retirement age after a career of trying to help right humanity's ship through helping industrial humanity clean up its act. He has followed my work for more than a decade (and helped me edit my big essay - those kinds of people have my eternal gratitude), and as he told me his story, I heard a familiar tale. I am going to generalize it into the kinds of people whom I am probably seeking, and I can probably state it in two words: disillusioned idealists.

In order to be an idealist, you have to have some of that Boy Scout or Girl Scout in you, and my fellow travelers in FE and related areas were all overgrown Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. They all originally believed in the ideals that they were fed, often from the cradle, but their passion and need to achieve their ideals eventually led them to waking up, and their illusions were shattered. Some nearly committed suicide when they had their moment of truth (1, 2), while mine had me envisioning scenes of murder. Some were more brutal, others were gentler, but what those idealists all had in common was their need to make the world a better place (the number one quality that I look for), and they all came to realize that there were many barriers to achieving that (and the biggest one is us ). Some realized that their efforts were thwarted by how the "system" operated, and others such as Ralph McGehee realized that their efforts made the situation worse. I have seen idealists in the military, of all places, who got sobered up (1, 2, 3), and if there can be idealists in the military, they can be found anywhere.

If they were scientists and came into my FE orbit, they often had a mystical awakening that showed the limits of the paradigm that mainstream science operates under. We were often rather rudely disabused of our naïveté, such as Mark was. Since I was a teenager, I have tried my best to live by Seth's idealistic credo: the means become the ends. I have good news for those frustrated idealists: their ideals can still be achieved, and the biggest leverage point on Earth by far, which dwarfs every other issue on Earth, is the energy issue. If we solve the energy issue once and for all, those ideals and far more can begin to come into view. Without that abundant and clean energy, they can't. People with scientific training easily understand that reality, while the scientifically illiterate generally have weak understandings and are easily distracted by the latest spectacle.

The scientifically trained have their own indoctrination to overcome, and the two pitfalls that I have seen most often are thinking that FE is "impossible," because of their "laws of physics" training and denying that elites are managing economies in surreptitious fashion, and the often irrationally dismiss all evidence of organized suppression of disruptive technologies, and specifically disruptive energy technologies, as a "conspiracy theory." Bucky Fuller remarked on that naiveté amongst scientists, and it has been a huge barrier to awareness for them as a group. I began my journey naively, as did all of my fellow travelers that I respected, but we all had our moment of disillusionment (which could be a radicalizing moment, depending on how spectacular that awakening moment was). So, the idealists' moments of disillusionment were critical for their development, and those idealists worthy of the description did not just abandon their ideals, but began groping for a greater understanding of why the world did not work like they were taught that it was. Sometimes, they find me and others in the FE field, as they come to the oasis they sought. However, all avenues to FE have failed, and the most important reason was humanity's low level of integrity, which those disillusioned idealists should have begun to suspect. I am here to tell them that the problem is far deeper than they likely imagined, and yet if a tiny fraction of humanity raised its level of awareness and pooled it as sentient individuals, only 5,000-7,000 of them would be enough for my plan to work. On one hand, that seems like a paltry number, but all of humanity's Epochal Events were started by fewer people. But those people who can achieve the awareness required for my plan to succeed are less than one-in-1,000 people in the general population, perhaps far fewer, but if it was as low as one-in-a-million, my plan can still work. Make no mistake: the technologies that can turn Earth into something resembling heaven are older than I am. But while humanity sleeps, we do not get any.

So, with the numbers of candidates for my plan so small relative to the general population, I am looking for needles in haystacks, but this new tool called the Internet is allowing me to hunt for them, and for them to find me. Humanity's window of opportunity to avoid a global catastrophe is quickly closing, so I feel the time pressure keenly, but I cannot compromise my principles. The FE battlefield is littered with the corpses of those who had to rush out and "do something" with their half-cocked and usually egocentric understandings. If my attempt will stand a chance, we need to raise the bar, and my essay and forum are intended to do that.

I can tell that people have a very difficult time understanding my approach, and that is partly because nobody has ever tried it before, so I spend a lot of time trying to help them see why the other approaches have not worked and are unlikely to, and why what I am doing is different. When I shared my approach with the two people whom I respected the most in the FE field, they perked up as they realized that it was something different. I do not know if it will work, but it won't hurt, and after 40 years on this idealistic project, it is the only approach that I am interested in, and I can give the rest of my life's "spare" time to it. I designed it so that I did not need money to do it. All I need are those needles in haystacks doing the work.

Hi Robin:
Briefly, nice to see your scientific background, and I sympathize with your disillusionment. I ordered that Tesla book. As you know, I write about Tesla, Edison, and the Robber Barons. Tesla was my professional grandfather in ways (or maybe great, great grandfather ), and Edison acted disgustingly, with his electric chair a monument to who he really was. I am reading that other book that you recommended and I wrote a little on anarchism previously. Government is part of the problem, as are corporations, as are any institutions that concentrate energy. Giving our power away is the root of our problems, I agree. We still have to cooperate (nobody can make FE happen by themselves, for instance), but when we give our power away, we become sheeple and easily manipulated by the social managers. It goes back to thinking like a victim or creator. Thinking like a victim is virtually universal in humanity today, and only spiritual masters have seemed to have overcome it. The path to our salvation is within, but we also live in physical reality and have biological needs. That is the tightrope that we walk when incarnating into physical reality, and we all get our turns falling off into the mud, but as a species we are on the brink of a fall that we may not survive. Although Michael can have an eerie detachment when speaking about such issues, I do not want to live to witness our demise by our own semi-sentient hand. Time to wake up.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have written on the kinds of people I seek, and I recently wrote a little more on the subject. This post is what I will be expecting and not expecting in my forum, which is not intended to be like any other forum that I ever saw.

The minimum requirements for being in the forum are reading my big essay, being a real person, and already be "singing" in cyberspace. Some will already be authors or aspiring authors, and some will be newer to the game, but they will have the talent for it and be willing to put in the work to become singers who can hit the notes. For anybody who is not sure, they can see Ilie's contributions to my threads and get a good idea of what I seek.

I will be building a virtual community of real people, which may one day become a more real-world community, but it may also largely stay in cyberspace. It will depend on the course of events.

This is what I intend for that "choir" to achieve:

• A high-level conversation oriented around the material in my big essay; there are more than a thousand topics to choose from, so it should never get dull.
• Some "posts" will be scholarly papers, and some may even be scientific, and probably most posts will be the kind of long and involved posts that I have made. There will be few terse posts, as the forum is about reaching high-level and sustained thought about the subjects.
• The goals will always include comprehensive thought, and the only two things that scientists know exist are energy and consciousness; those will be the twin pillars of the conversations.
• As I often state, it always begins in the heart, and perhaps my primary goal is to create a loving atmosphere.
• It is intended to create a harmonious song of abundance that has yet to be heard on Earth in chorus, and the intent is that it attracts about 100,000 people who have pined for that song for their entire lives. When that stage has been reached, we will be ready to "do something," which will be helping manifest the biggest event in the human journey.

The conversations will have these attributes:

• They will be far more focused on the latest scientific papers than they will the latest YouTube video or free energy gossip regarding the inventor of the hour. If we are going to make a dent, we have to raise the bar far beyond what exists in cyberspace today.
• They will be oriented around energy, consciousness, and the other subjects of the big essay. It will also be OK for it to cover other topics that my website addresses. There is truly something for everybody, and in some instances, broadening the conversation beyond those parameters may be appropriate.
• They will have broken free of the scarcity-based dominant ideologies on Earth today, or are actively involved in that wrestling match and "winning."
• They will always aspire to a creator's perspective, not a victim's; one is based in love, and the other in fear.
• They will always be friendly and considerate. There will not be strife, discord, trolling, and the kinds of battles that we see in nearly all Internet forums today. I will be surprised if any conversation will ever need to be moderated, other than trying to get them back on track if they wander too far. Because of the broad nature of my work, seeming wandering can happen, as long as it does not lose sight of the goal.
• They will be interdisciplinary and will not stray far beyond what can be demonstrated. The forum will be a No-Dogma Zone as much as possible, and the discussions will attempt to hew closely to the ideals of science and scholarship, and will avoid many New Age ideas and other fringe topics that can swallow up conversations and derail them.
• The key goal is arriving at a comprehensive understanding the epochal significance of free energy and beginning to glimpse the potential if free energy and related technologies were part of our daily lives. Everything else should pale next to that.

I also need to state some of what the conversation will not be about, and this will just hit the highlights. It will not be about:

• Promoting matters of faith, conspiracist lore, elite machinations, insider revelations from the Black Operations world, ETs, UFOs, Ascended Masters, channelings, and similar topics. They may all come into play now and then, but they will not be the focus.
• Free energy gossip, what free energy inventors are up to, and other areas of the field's arrested development, "bright ideas" to make free energy happen that are variations on the failed and unlikely approaches.
• Many fringe science and scholarship topics that I have either investigated and found wanting, or even if valid were not strongly related to manifesting free energy or understanding important aspects of how our world really works. I am always open to new horizons, but that forum will have an important and specific purpose and cannot afford to get sidetracked on irrelevant or tangential subjects.
• How to bring the conversation to Earth's masses. It will be available to anybody, but it will not attempt to recruit the masses or the social circles of the forum's participants. It is not for a forum for "activists" attempting to engage the masses. It will be about creating a different kind of community, and that community may eventually "do something" besides sing. Its target audience will be a vanishingly small fraction of humanity, but they will be enough to succeed.

We are conditioned from our cradles, and I cannot speak for other nations, but in the USA, several flavors of Kool-Aid are force-fed Americans from infancy. I have almost never met an American who got all of the taste out of his/her mouth. It is not only conditioning into political/economic/social ideologies, but also gender conditioning. In order to become useful for my effort, men have to relinquish the need to be heroes, wanting to battle the "bad guys," and the like. Women have to leave aside being cheerleaders and groupies, and come to the table as equals with critical thinking abilities and some scientific literacy. Some gender biases have actually been baked into our DNA, so are not easy to overcome, but doing so is the path of sentience. If any free energy effort becomes a Boys' Club, it will likely not succeed. The effort has to be focused on our combined positive intention, not the innumerable distractions or what the "bad guys" may be up to.

Those wild gender imbalances in efforts I have seen have been fatal flaws and are a big reason for the free energy field's current state of arrested development. Women need to step up, men need to step back, and we need to relinquish our in-group ideologies and see all life on Earth as our in-group, and when the ETs arrive, they can join the in-group. Shedding our scarcity-based and egocentric conditioning is no easy task, but in order for my effort to make a dent, the participants need to make continual efforts to try. I have to be vigilant daily. When we cannot break free, then those well-worn paths of failure begin to look attractive, which can be a life-wrecking and even fatal delusion. Making the attempt to break free of our conditioning is far more important than it may appear to the casual observer.

A voice in my head led me on my journey, so I am well-acquainted with "paranormal" experiences, but I certainly do not expect anybody to accept my accounts on faith. It is hard to document a voice in one's head, but the radical change in my life's direction from each experience is readily documented, especially my days with Dennis. Whether it is a voice in somebody's head, whether it was mine, Edgar Cayce's, or Dennis's, or whether it is a channel, there can be ways to validate the information, or falsify it, especially if the information is important. There is a mountain of chaff on the fringes. Although Cayce's method was used to give me my mystical awakening, Cayce used his abilities to look for buried treasure (and failed, and wisely abandoned using his talents in that way), and his "Atlantean" comments on Giza's necropolis do not appear to be valid.

Similarly, ancient texts have been compared to archeological reality and been found wanting. So, hypotheses based on literal interpretations of ancients texts are going to be pretty shaky. Likewise, evidence for a city at Cydonia or faked moon landings just does not withstand scrutiny.

People can make all manner of claim, but do they withstand scrutiny? I have found that some does, rather robustly, while most fringe claims do not.

There will be some free energy physics discussed on my forum, but it will only be some, and I will do my best so that the conversations do not head toward the many rabbit holes of arrested development that the free energy field has fallen into.

I consider this thread to be a place where people can audition to be in the choir. I have given examples of what I am looking for (1, 2), and I look forward to hearing people hit notes higher and clearer than mine. Some in the choir most certainly will. Maybe not immediately, but one day, I expect to hear it, and in chorus.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I could write choir Q&As ad infinitum. I am also always reading. Although I reward completion of hard writing with fiction (usually fantasy), I am usually right back at it, and these days, I find myself studying areas that I have written about in more depth, partly due to curiosity, partly due to wanting to make sure my writings are as accurate as I can make them. I have been particularly studying migrations of humanity early in the Domestication Revolution. Peter Bellwood's First Migrants is the best single volume resource that I have seen on the subject. The bottom line is that people migrated to where the energy was. For humanity's initial migration that conquered Earth, it meant finding the easy meat. After the easy meat was rendered extinct globally, as well as all other human species, then human subsistence practices radically changed. It is also when warfare began, as the Golden Age of the Hunter-Gatherer ended as humans fought over territories that had been shorn of their easy meat.

In warm climates with dry seasons, certain plants developed a strategy of storing energy in the wet season, and humans began to exploit those energy stores. For thousands of years, it was a rather advanced gathering process, which eventually led to crop production. Humans could only take those practices where crops could support them. Agriculture could only appear where the big game had been rendered extinct and hunters did not dominate, as mobile bands of hungry hunters easily raided settled farmers. Keith Otterbein's The Anthropology of War is the best single volume on the subject that I have encountered. It is a slim book, but it contains some important original insights.

When hunting declined and gathering and then horticulture rose, women's labor became more valuable, and many of those societies became matrilocal, which broke a trend in the gorilla/chimp/human line that was at least ten million years old. When those societies became matrilocal, men left their natal societies and it broke up the gangs of related men that dominated patrilocal societies. Bonobos also overcame male dominance, and it was always an economic issue above all else. When female status rose and broke up male gangs, those became relatively peaceful societies, which Otterbein called Type B societies. Type A patrilocal and male-dominated societies are extremely violent, and Otterbein even suggested that female anthropologists should avoid Type A societies as objects of study, unless they wanted to risk being raped or worse.

Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson's Demonic Males also covers some of that territory, but the issue of food, labor, gender, and violence is not something that I ever found treated in one volume, so I had to kind of piece it together. As far as I know, the way that I have integrated it is unique. There are other variables and diversity in patrilocal/matrilocal societies, but that general framework seems valid to me.

Also, another pattern was that it seems that most expansions of agriculture were not a cultural diffusion, in that hunter-gatherers settled down and learned farming practices. Farming produced many times the calories that hunting and gathering did, and those supported vastly larger populations, and the pattern in most agricultural expansions was farmers displacing hunter-gatherers, with the hunter-gatherer women mating with the farmer men, and hunter-gatherer men died out. That can be seen in the DNA, whether it was Europe or Africa. When Spaniards invaded the Western Hemisphere, native Caribbean men completely disappeared from the gene pool. That was the standard pattern when newly dominant peoples arrived.

As agricultural surpluses became the first significant tradable wealth, men rose to dominance again in those pristine civilizations, women's status universally declined with the rise of civilization and did not rise again until industrialization, and the same dynamic led to the end of chattel slavery.

That is a story that only a generalist can tell, and there are wrinkles here and there in it, but that is the basic story that my studies have pieced together, and it seems valid, and strongly so. Economics is always the dog, and social relations, including politics, comprise the tail. Fuller also understood. As I stated in my previous post, gender differences, to a degree, are baked into our DNA. Small boys naturally play roughly, which is no different than how playful kittens pounce on anything that moves, as boys are in training for a life of fighting. Men play often-violent games of dominance, and women play subtle games of manipulation. These traits are deeply baked into our biology and cultures, but humans have adapted to changed economic conditions, and that has also been reflected in our DNA to a degree. Humanity can overcome and even redirect its evolutionary tendencies. Humans have the potential for true sentience, even if it has rarely been aspired to or attained.

Back to work.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Today's decision by Switzerland to no longer peg their currency is one of the early shockwaves that are going to be rippling through the global economy. Because of my background, I keep up on the financial economy. Although it ultimately is not real, it is a huge political football and banking is one of the cartels that control the world economy, and in a world of scarcity, it has importance for people's daily lives. But manipulating the financial or political systems will do nothing at all for righting humanity's ship. Fuller noted it about political systems, and it goes doubly for financial systems. All such systems are only about parceling out scarce economic production, which has disproportionately enriched the elite since the first civilizations. There is nothing new about the global rape-and-plunder operations that elites are inflicting on humanity today, with the masses willingly doing their dirty work, as usual. Trying to "fix" the global financial and political systems is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Machines perform 99.9% of all work performed in industrialized nations. Humans do virtually none of it, and the energy sources that fueled the Industrial Revolution are being used up a million times as fast as they were created. Next to that, everything else is noise. The only reason why the world's biggest killing machine has been ensconced in the Middle East and vicinity is because the Soviet Union collapsed and there was no longer any strong reason to not simply invade, kill off millions of people, and control the world's last easy energy. It is all about the oil, and everything else is just noise, but a scientifically illiterate public (and even worse are trained economists) is oblivious, and if anybody tries to do anything about the world's problems, they hack at branches and do not even realize that there is a root. I am trying to help change that perception in those whom I seek.

I have written to quite a few members of the financial press who understand Peak Oil, and so far, nobody is home. I tried more than a decade ago with Earth's leading Peak Oil spokesman, and his reaction has been common to every Peak Oiler that I have encountered, as they are addicted to their perspective. No surprises there, but I had to try. They at least get points for understanding the role of energy in the world, but are so entrenched that they help comprise what I have long called Level 3s, who are ideologically impervious to FE's reality, as most of the scientifically trained also are.

The greatest terror state in world history is the USA, and when I see articles like this, that get a lot of it right, and also rightly call terrorism a specialty of states, I think that there might be some hope for us, but such articles are written anonymously, which shows how much of the "free speech" rhetoric in the USA is just that, rhetoric. I recently read this great article on how hard it is to awaken from our conditioning, and again, the writers are anonymous. My friend Ralph McGehee lived through hell for speaking up, and fates like his is why Americans are not my target audience and I have declined all invitations to speak publicly in the USA, unless it is on a radio show. I do not need to go to prison on fabricated charges, get run out of my home nation like Brian and Dennis were, or get murdered, so while I am anything but anonymous, I am reaching beyond my home nation in my activism. Americans are always welcome to read my work and even join my choir, but I do not target them. My target audience is global.

I only go to California when I have to, and stories like this one pale next to mine, but I had to go recently, and when I do, I always lay low.

In this issue of Z Magazine, I read of the USA's wars in Hydrocarbon Country, and it was grim reading, as usual. The article will be visible here in a couple of months (the author has similar articles there), but the gist of it was that the Islamic State is supported by the locals in Iraq because defends them from their own "government," which is made of American puppets. The locals had to choose between the lesser of two evils. The USA has killed off 10% of Iraq's Sunni population, which means about a million people, which is only part of the four million excess deaths that the USA has inflicted on Iraq since 1991. Hitler and Stalin would be impressed, especially as we did it for "freedom." The USA had mass murder programs in Iraq after the invasion, which were like its Phoenix Program in Vietnam.

On a lighter note, I recently read this article on Scotland's windmill effort, which highlights some of the problems with wind power, even on some of the windiest land on Earth.

Back to chores.

Best,

Wade

[Ilie Pandia]

Interesting article about the Scotland's windmill effort. I took it "seriously" that it would be on a lighter note, but now it seems like it was sarcasm.

As I was reading the article I moved from cheering along to: oh, oh... that won't work!

I've always imagined that a surplus of energy production (a term that I find funny - I'd use "conversion" instead) would be beneficial. Since everything requires energy a surplus of energy would mean lower costs across the board right?!

Turns out my thinking was rather limited, idealistic and naive . There are a few things to consider...

1) Not all energy is "produced" equally.

According to the article the coal energy is the cheapest. The wind energy is very expensive. That seemed strange, but there is a reason... Wind energy is subsidized: "the producers get paid their elevated guaranteed price regardless of whether or not there is demand for the power". Isn't that the capitalistic dream? Have a guarantee sale of a highly priced product regardless of demand for it? So we know why wind energy is expensive.

Why is coal so cheap? That is not explained properly, but I think there is a hidden reason. Coal is cheap because pollution and environmental impact (production of CO2 among others) is not properly dealt with. The cost of that is offset elsewhere. In your medical bill, put in the lap of future generations (or even our generation in the not so distant future), or, if you're powerful enough, have other countries pay for it.

2) There is the problem of instant demand and storage

Wind does not blow all the time. So you need a solution for times when there is too much wind or when there is no wind.

I immediately though of storage! Just store the excess and use it later or sell it. What could be the problem. Seems logical, right?

Well, turns out that storing energy is not that simple . You'd have to convert it into some form that suitable for long term storage. And then you'd have to convert it back to electricity. So you have energy that it's already expensive, then add costs for putting into storage, add costs for maintaining the storage, add costs for converting it from storage back to usable electricity. You will quickly use more energy for this entire process that you "produced" initially.

What was hilarious was the note that: when wind blows hard in Scotland it likely blows hard in other neighboring countries as well. Therefore nobody wants to buy the expensive wind energy. They have enough of it already!

When there is no wind, you need "backup generators" - like coal plants and it's not clear if nuclear plants can work in that fashion. That means, you need energy to keep such facilities in "stand by" all the time. More costs...

3) Transportation ?

Surely, wind does not blow all over the planet at the same time. So why not sell this neat expensive excess to countries where wind does not blow as much?

Well, on paper that looks nice. You draw some electrical lines, put a meter on them, and you're all set. In real life, however, connecting energy grids and transporting energy from one place to another, based on the instant demand is not so easy... You have to have conversions, loss over the wires, some sort of buffers and you can only go so far before the loss is too great to make sense.

So... apparently and over zealous effort for "green energy" does not really help. It looks like, in the end, you use up more energy in the entire process than you "extract" from the wind. Of course, using economics, you can obfuscate all that, and make it look like the "green energy" is the Holly Grail and everything works smoothly. Ask any wind power producer that has guaranteed sales what he thinks of this?

I understand I may have actually just rewritten that article through my own view (and with less accurate terms), but it was a good exercise. And perhaps others will look more closely at how so called "green energy" actually works.

[Wade Frazier]

Hey Ilie:

It was "lighter" than genocide and murder squads in Iraq! It was not a sarcastic "lighter." If you had read the article's title, you would not have been surprised.

You have a good grip on the myriad issues with wind power. One of the ironies is that the article was about Scottish wind and its interplay with England. Those two countries were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of coal. Coal supplanted wind and water power, and here we are, coming full circle, back to wind, in the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. Of course, wind is not really much of a solution, for those reasons that that article and you point out. It is not nearly as "green" as popularly presented. Those windmills kill numerous birds, too, but with bird populations declining, maybe not as many birds will be killed, so I guess there may be a silver lining there (sarcasm warning! ).

The author of that article is one of the bloggers that I have written to, to see if FE might interest them, but I have yet to find anybody home. While they have a pretty good understanding of the role of energy in our world, they are almost all Level 2s or Level 3s, in my experience. But I still ping them now and then.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Not sure if this is a lighter note or not, Ilie, but the presentation is slick, which I saw promoted on a capitalist website. Oh, the investment opportunities!

My "doomsday" scenarios are mostly the ones we make for ourselves in next century or so (or maybe faster! ).

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

How about storing off peak unused load in a superconductor ring 20 mile in diameter. No conversion, no limit, cheap to draw off the power. and we could smash atoms together with the unused demand or use it to make compressed hydrogen needed for coolent.

Course, Tesla would argue the ionosphere is a far better storage medium...

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Rebel:

Yes, windmills to power Buck Rogers stuff. I can get with that.

Dennis's heat pump had a classic storage problem. It performed better in daylight, but the use was in the morning and evening, when the family was home. So, a large hot water tank was often the solution. Of course, off-peak electric was at night, so there was a trade-off. Mr. Mentor's engine had hydraulic storage. He also invented a windmill that eliminated some windmill problems (vertical blades, among other features), but nothing very innovative is allowed to get very far along, and it was a deadly game in the USA long ago.

Matching energy generation to demand is an age-old problem, and many solutions have been devised. Generating energy when needed is obviously ideal, and with FE, it would be.

Best,

Wade

[Ilie Pandia]

Hm, that graphic is slick... But I have a hard time seeing past this decade. Not really because of doom and gloom, but because things keep changing so fast. If the IT industry is allowed to develop relatively free, the innovation curve is exponential. And there is a domino effect that can start any time and send shock waves across the planet.

So there is a huge potential for dramatic changes in the very near future. Sometimes I think it's a miracle we're still here .

The choice between Utopia and Oblivion is knocking harder at the door.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ilie:

Yes, things change. For instance if we get FE, antigravity, and the other technologies kept under wraps today, and anything close to this vision comes to pass, everything in that list up to nano-weapons becomes irrelevant, at least as far as human survival goes. IMO, a lot of the AI and nano fears are a little overblown, but worth addressing. With FE and the related technologies, humanity will become a spacefaring species no longer confined to Earth, and I would expect numerous space colonies, although Earth would likely still be humanity's primary home, but we would no longer dominate/exploit the ecosphere. I have read in some channeled works that some civilizations completely left their home planet for orbiting cities, and the planet became one big park. That is one way to do it.

To your energy production/conversion comment, in a way, all energy is conversion, if you think of it. All energy seems to be movement. We call converting chemical energy (the energy of electron movement) to kinetic energy (the movement of atoms) production, but it is just converting one form of energy (movement) to another. The same goes for nuclear energy, although those energy flows are too small to detect today. Heck, Level 19s are probably "just" converting consciousness energy to other energy forms. It is one way to think about it.

Yes indeed, the split in the road is coming very near, where we either get over the hump or go sailing off the cliff. I opt for Door Number 1.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have mentioned that my big essay has more than a thousand topics for choir discussion, and all of the topics fascinate me. I will pick a Q&A today by randomly picking some part of my essay, well, kind of random. I was recently in a conversation and said that my favorite section of my big essay was between when life began colonizing land to the bolide event that drove dinosaurs to extinction. Why is that my favorite? I am not sure. Maybe it is because life on Earth was more pristine and "innocent," more pregnant with potential, and full of plants and animals that would seem so unusual today. Earth was generally warmer, species were more diverse, biomass was greater, there were forests at the poles at times, and other features of those times enchant me. Paleobiologists often fall under the spell of imagining that past, and I admit to having the disease.

Of course, my visionary chapter, if realized to any significant degree, would make any Disney movie pale in comparison. I would expect the choir to spend a lot of time exploring that visionary chapter and its ramifications, and in fact, that is probably the primary purpose of that essay: making FE's potential thinkable. I have been writing on that subject for more than a decade.

So, I will now pick a random place in those chapters, and make a Q&A…

Q: Wade, when life migrated from the oceans, what kinds of challenges did it have to overcome?

A: Many, and often profound ones. Since plants could make their own energy by capturing it from the Sun, they were the first to make the move. Animals had a long developmental path, from the Ediacaran forms to the Cambrian Explosion to the Ordovician expansion, when ecosystems first reached a diversity that could be called modern. Plants really did not come into their own until they migrated to land, and the Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous periods for plants were analogous to the Ediacaran, Cambrian, and Ordovician periods for animals in that they initially appeared, had an initial explosion, and then had an adaptive radiation that filled the biomes, and mass extinctions of the early biological experiments dotted the landscape. Today, land plants form about half of Earth's biomass, with prokaryotes almost all the rest, and animals comprise less than 1%. Plants had to develop lignin for vascular transport and later for making wood to give plants a height advantage (and those early trees formed most of Earth's coal deposits). They had to develop bark, leaves, roots and reproductive systems, which eventually led to seeds so that plants could colonize dryer environments, and conifer forests first appeared in the Permian.

As amazing as the plant migration was, the animal migration was more amazing, and not just because I am an animal. Leaving the water for land presented great challenges, and only a few animal phyla succeeded. First up were arthropods, which were also the first dominant marine animals. Fish had to make three attempts before they permanently colonized land. Although most fish already could breathe air directly, moving onto land presented many challenges. It is also thought that those fish pioneers colonized land out of necessity, as they had been pushed to ecosystem margins by more dominant competitors. It is similar to how some "loser" chimps were pushed out of the shrinking rainforest, learned to walk upright, and eventually became human.

Those fish that became amphibians had to deal with moving on land, desiccation, breathing the often-low-oxygen air, big temperature swings between night and day, pronounced seasons, and they had to remain close to water to lay their eggs. Like trees developed seeds to reduce their water dependency, some landlubber fish developed amniotic eggs that did not need to be laid in water and reptiles appeared, which soon dominated, and that clade still does.

The subject of adaptations to land life, for both plants and animals, is deep and enthralling, and scientists have devoted careers to relatively tiny aspects of those subjects. While the story pieced together so far is fascinating, the process of discovery and study will never end, especially for ancient subjects like those.

Best,

Wade

[Robin]

I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts before getting to work.

Ilie and Wade:

I've been on a few wind farms owned and operated by very large companies. I conducted biological surveys as part of my job to get an idea of the impact that wind turbines have on birds. I can tell you right now that wind turbines are destructive to no end. Really, a more appropriate term for them is slaughter-machines. They decimate birds of all kinds - especially eagles and birds of prey - by the millions each year. From the people I've talked to, I've heard that these companies are paid by Godzilla to not disclose their statistics. I wouldn't doubt it, and I've seen first-hand the dead birds lying beneath the turbines by the hundreds.

I also have a few thoughts concerning the scientific literacy of people which has been brought up before with Wade and others. In my opinion, any society that is collectively scientifically illiterate is a destructive one. This notion must be written into the laws of nature, because if a society cannot grasp the general outline of the world around them, then it is subjected to the will of those who do understand it. Because of agriculture and the movement of people into cities long ago, which Wade discusses quite elegantly in his Big Essay, people began to specialize in jobs that moved away from the simple hunting/gathering routine.

Because of this specialization, cities were created to maintain an economy based on a sedentary lifestyle. What seems like a good idea in theory turned out to be the society that we see today, which is a cacophony of ignorant people who no longer know how to carry out the most simple of tasks that require a general acquisition of knowledge through practice. The very concept of cities, at least in the modern sense, is a flawed one that leaves trails of destruction everywhere.

The loss of basic skills within the average person has caused a massive shift in heavy reliance on others to ensure your survival. Today, most people are entirely dependent on government programs for their survival, especially when it comes to food production. This dependency on a small percentage of people is hazardous in theory, especially when this same small percentage is also in charge of most scientific areas.

With the Fifth Epochal Event started by the trumpeting of singers of FE, I envision a future where everybody is a scientist. Most people are intimidated by the massive amount of complex information that modern education systems force onto students who want to study science, and I understand. I went through the whole process kicking and screaming to get my degree, knowing the entire time that this system was heavily flawed.

The current education system is flawed as a whole, but I can see why we are a scientifically illiterate society. These curriculums are specifically designed to make the work challenging, to weed out those people who challenge the current scientific model. They only want people who do not question, and only obey. The scientific curriculums are designed to seem like complex algorithms that can only be understood by a very few. In reality, everybody has a different brain structure and different way of learning. If only we would design out curriculums with this in mind, and cater to the individual rather than the collective, we could have a scientifically literate society.

Science is complex, yes, but that is the beauty of it. Learning math and the basics of chemistry, biology, and physics is important for any human to understand the world around them, but these subjects can be learned in different ways. I envision a future where everybody will be a scientist to some capacity. These subjects will be taught in a general way to every individual at a young age, so the knowledge could follow them throughout their whole life in whatever they choose to focus on. And really, one does not need to have a degree in science or have a job in a scientific field to be a scientist.

One of the things that gives me great hope is the concept of Citizen Science. There are a myriad of websites and organizations that allow the average person to learn about science in their own backyards. All you have to do is take a photo or a sample of an insect, bird, or plant, and submit it onto a website where professionals will analyze the data for you and determine what species you may have. There are citizen science-based websites for insects, birds, plants, and just about anything else. All that you need is the passion for ecology and the CARE to want to understand the world around you.

Birding is an excellent way to contribute to science and have fun at the same time. There are organizations that could really benefit from a list of birds that you see in migration, and it would ultimately help unify the world as a whole!

I envision a future of scientists, where people will follow their passions and get joy out of their work. It won't even seem like work if you do it right.

And one of my favorite quotes:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

~Robert A. Heinlein

Robin

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Robin:

Brilliant little post, and before I begin my day of chores, here are a few comments. I realized as I began writing this that I have strayed from my "day in a life" story of a person in that Roads world, and will attempt to finish it in the next week. One of the most fascinating aspects of that world, to me, was their "school." Although they all learned in a VR bed that goes beyond people's wildest imaginations today, the students learned what they wanted, how they wanted, and how fast they wanted, but they also learned a hundred times faster than we do today, and by age six, they knew almost everything that there was to know about the human body and how to be well. The average six-year-old in that reality was far smarter and more informed than anybody on Earth today. Sign me up!

The last chapter added to my essay, as I recall, was my mid-essay reflection, before humanity entered the story of life on Earth. I discussed why I had a 200-page "prelude" to what most readers would find interesting, but for the people I seek, that first half should be enthralling. Everybody on Earth should know the rudiments of what is in that essay's first half, and I even have some pictures!

I am more than OK if members of the choir take a chapter of my big essay and expand on it with multimedia presentations and the like (with videos probably hosted at YouTube, so I can freeload on Google ).

Yes indeed, the science curriculum is often made unnecessarily difficult and "hoop-jumping" to weed out people, partly for reasons of competence, and partly for reasons of indoctrination and control. I designed my big essay so that laypeople can read it, and laypeople such as Nine already have, but my jury is still out on how successful my efforts will be to reach the lay audience. So far, scientists and academics are the most avid readers of my big essay, but my intention was to reach far beyond professional scientists. Heck, I am not one.

On birds and windmills, fortunately, enough people are speaking out, like you just did, to show what a bird holocaust windmill farms are, among many other problems. Windmills comprise the primary energy "answer" promoted by Peak Oilers such as Heinberg, along with a 90% depopulation of Earth. No wonder people under the spell of such "visions" kill themselves.

Learning about how the world works should be fun, but it can taste deadly at first, when the learning begins clashing with our indoctrination.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As an American, it really can be mind-boggling to witness open theft by the government from its citizens, as if the USA was some kind of banana republic. Under Reagan, laws were passed to just start seizing cash from citizens under the assumption that anybody with much cash was a drug dealer. As I recall, before it was finally overturned in the USA's Supreme Court several years later, in more than 85% of the cases, charges were never filed, and the people did not recover their cash that the government essentially stole from them. The stolen cash was used to fund police departments, and who knows how much made it out the back door somehow. The "funny" part about that was that law enforcement was involved in the drug trade in every county in the USA, as it was so lucrative (and the CIA was involved with around half of all imported drugs). The evil could be stunning. The landmark instance was a trooper in Florida who made a career out of sitting next to the highway, and any car that looked rich (and probably black) was pulled over and their cash seized. That cop pulled in millions of dollars that way. That kind of "justice" is particularly prevalent in the South.

Not to be deterred, there has been an epidemic of civil asset forfeitures, again under the suspicion of drug dealing. It looks like the federal government may finally do something about it, in The Land of the Free.

That is grist to generate cognitive dissonance for any American flag waver. Slaughtering millions of people to seize their oil goes completely under the radar, but maybe having their homes stolen by the cops will wake a few more up, not that they are my target audience by any means.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Reading the recent posts here from Ilie, and Robin and Wade, I went back and took a look through a little folder I made a while ago of writings addressing issues with renewables.

One article (linked below) includes statistics on various renewables, including biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen, photovoltaic, solar and wind . It briefly looks at :

- the large amounts of land needed for various renewables to meet energy requirements.
- environmental obstacles to their effectiveness
- environmental damage they can cause (air, water and noise pollution, damage to ecosystems and living beings, etc)
- the energy cost of producing the fuels / technologies to begin with

http://www.zefferman.com/wp-content/...e-pimental.pdf

It made some good points, but I don't know how reliable some of the sources for its statistics are. For example, at one point it states "The estimated 13,000 wind turbines installed in the United States have killed fewer than 300 birds per year (Kerlinger 2000)." But as Robin noted, and Wade agreed, the numbers of casualties may be a lot higher than those officially published and would only worsen if the technology was increasingly rolled out. Another issue that cropped up in the article was the fact that some of the energy technologies required yet more energy to deal with the environmental waste / hazards they generate.

Where renewables technologies are causing damage and not proving effective enough to meet demands, but are being heavily subsidised and promoted by governments and their affiliates regardless, it lends credence to the idea that :
1) We suffer from a lack of scientific knowledge, where the right hand in the scientific community and / or governments doesn't know what the left hand is doing / saying.
2) Corruption in the system is rife (there being nothing new under the sun in that respect.)

One of the things I found while researching the issue is that it's a strange and contradictory world, where FE explorers find some of the research questioning renewables' effectiveness comes from the pro-hydrocarbons camp. Equally - government voices, such as John Holdren, Barack Obama's senior advisor on science and technology, have written about the problems with standard renewables. But you're unlikely to hear them mention FE. Instead you are more likely to hear proposals for controlling the population, and that usually means austerity-related measures, rather than promoting the kind of FE abundance that can lead to population balancing itself more naturally.

Standard renewables have numerous difficulties to overcome. Even seemingly benign technologies like solar can require the use of rare earth minerals, something I touched on in a post over here:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post823095

and currently the mining and recycling of materials for electronic parts can be dangerous as well as unhealthy for employees. Both mining and recycling can be made more efficient and less dangerous if we have abundant, clean energy to help us mine asteroids instead of the earth, and automated technology doing 'manual' labour in a world where people are not reliant on taking jobs to survive. You will still need supervisors and engineers. But it will be a different work culture - with no draconian undertones. Moving farming, mining and eventually habitation off planet is feasible with FE, unlike with renewables such as wind or bio-fuel which make more (not less) demands on the planet.

With new developments in what materials can be used to manufacture more slimline and efficient solar technology, I can see how solar could be used for small-scale localised needs. But the tech still suffers from intermittency issues, with some planetary locations being more viable than others. With an FE culture based on zero-point energy devices (for example), some portions of the populace may not wish to develop technologically in the same way or at the same rate, and part of honouring sovereignty is respecting that choice, provided the less high-tech way of life works in harmony with the environment. So less exotic energy technologies may still be preferred in certain cases.

That said - even if we opt for a variety and combination of free energy technologies, with local free energy devices powering buildings, transport and machinery, you will have a massively reduced energy infrastructure (less pipes, wires, mines, farms, tankers etc) which is far more efficient in terms of energy use. Equally, the independent-minded culture which that can foster means that a lot of the materials / technology that can insulate or cool buildings more effectively (preventing energy waste), which may currently have struggled to make it to the market place, can be invented and manufactured cheaply and locally by individuals, with 3D printers or similar technology. This is a point that I particularly enjoy – that FE can actually mean less waste, rather than more. I think studying that is a part of our transition, as we set about understanding such an enigmatic and breakthrough technology.

The issues surrounding standard renewables are definitely ones that I've looked at more closely, thanks to following your thread Wade. Thank you.

[Wade Frazier]

Thanks Melinda:

I could write a lot in reply to your nice post, but briefly…

Yes, and under an abundance paradigm, which only FE is likely to accomplish, as far as I can see, "work" will no longer be motivated like it is today, with owners, employees, people trying to get rich, especially at the expense of others, and other primitive notions that are today considered just how it is, human "nature," and the like, similarly to how slavery was seen three centuries ago. People will "work" for vastly different reasons than today, and the "workday" of an average adult will likely be a few hours at most. Those who think that humanity will just become a bunch of fat, couch-potato hedonists are mistaken, I believe. A true abundance paradigm has never really been glimpsed on Earth before, and getting today's masses to understand that is like trying to explain a campfire and what came with it to australopiths, or a city to hunter-gatherers 20,000 years ago. They will have to experience it before they can begin to understand, and new horizons of the human journey will appear.

And when people begin to understand, I really think that so many differences in humanity today are going to disappear. I recently discussed this. Various mystical sources state that humanity will give up war and know peace, that there will be one human family, that even race will disappear, and the like, and as I studied for my big essay, I realized that those would all be very logical outcomes of FE and related technologies that are already on the planet today. No need to wax mystically. Humanity will no longer be geographically isolated, as anybody will be able to travel anywhere on Earth in almost no time for no effort. Cities will likely largely disappear, and any urban areas that remained would look very little like what exists today, and would not function the same at all. Every people on Earth easily saw the benefits of industrialization and would take it if they could get it. When FE and abundance comes, I cannot see too many people, if anybody, refusing to enjoy the benefits and living some austere and isolated life in the sticks. Maybe a few will, but they will be odd outliers, and when the benefits of FE and related technologies are freely available, I have a hard time seeing people reject them. It would be like saying, "I would like to give you a billion dollars. Do you mind?"

I have mentioned the idea of element banks. Basically, with FE and related technologies kept under wraps, we are not far from having appliances like replicators, and there would never be any waste of any kind. All elements get recycled. Available energy has always been the primary constraint.

On bird mortality, this article uses an estimate about a hundred times higher in the USA than that article used, and this one uses an estimate nearly two thousand times higher, so that article is a bit suspect on that score, to put it mildly. If you look at the list in that first article, cats kill the most birds, by far, and FE and related technologies could eliminate all the other bird-death causes in the list in that article. With FE and related technologies, humans could have about zero impact on Earth's ecosystems.

That article that you cited, that made the case for alternative energy providing half of the USA's energy in exchange for 17% of its land, pretty much means that no place on Earth could reach an American standard of living using traditional alternative energy (the USA is sparsely populated compared to nearly every place else, especially Eurasia). I grew weary of those kinds of strategies long ago. Brian O crafted what became the USA's energy policy under Jimmy Carter, and eventually realized that traditional alternatives were all way too little and too late, which is what spurred him to look into FE in the first place. FE means that all people on Earth would have access to hundreds or thousands of times more energy than they do today, and that will translate directly into their standard of living. Again, almost nobody today can even imagine it, but shows such as Star Trek give a hint.

On the contradictions from various camps, yes, it can get crazy. The Hydrocarbon Lobby and those they influence long denied Global Warming, and when that stance no longer worked, then they tried to deny human agency in it, and scientists in their employ began looking for the silver lining in raised carbon dioxide levels such as plants growing faster (while ignoring or minimizing the many other deleterious effects). You then have environmentalists, for those who are genuine and not bought off or fake to begin with, who decry burning hydrocarbons but advocate nuclear energy as the only viable solution. In the wake of Fukushima, along with the "a little radiation is good for you" propaganda (that began with Edward Teller - a little conflict of interest there ), I actually read "environmental" groups flacking for nuclear power, when it had not yet been publicly admitted that Fukushima's reactor cores had melted down. When I saw those pro-nuclear quotes from environmentalists mere days after Fukushima went off, it was like I was in a scene from Alice in Wonderland. So, yes, those conflicts of interest can be mind-boggling and some very strange bedfellows can be found.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Before I start my day, a little choir Q&A.

Q: Wade, I have read all sorts of material on how the planets may not have formed as popularly supposed (such as Venus being recently ejected from Jupiter), may not have been in the current configuration for long (such as Earth once orbiting Saturn), an inhabited planet on an orbit lasting thousands of years may be returning soon (called Nibiru by some), a recent ice-free Antarctica, or the Chinese sailing around the world in the 1400s, and the theories sure seem convincing to me. Why do you not discuss those in your work?

A: I do not discuss them because I do not consider them valid, or if they are, nobody has presented conclusive evidence for those ideas. Those hypotheses are often constructed by people with little scientific or academic training, or operating out of their field of expertise, who interpret ancient texts in creative ways that no specialists agree with, and make numerous questionable interpretations of the evidence. That is not to say that specialists are always right. Far from it, but if those hypotheses (which are more like wild speculations) are not in alignment with the corpus of accepted scientific facts and theories, they have a high hurdle to overcome, and so far, I have yet to see any of those hypotheses come close to meeting any standards that would cause them to be taken very seriously by orthodoxy.

Probably the most famous of those hypotheses was Velikovsky's, and I have been on the fringes of that controversy for nearly 20 years. In the 1990s, I had not done the work to assess the hypothesis in light of the evidence, but watched the salvos fly between Velikovsky's defenders and critics. Einstein was one of the few scientists to consider Velikovsky's hypothesis, and Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision was the only book open on Einstein's desk when he died, because one of Velikovsky's predictions was confirmed when Jupiter was found to emit radio waves (but not for the reasons that Velikovsky stated). Over the years, as I digested the information around Velikovsky's hypothesis and reception, I came to the conclusion that many in the scientific community acted shabbily as they assailed Velikovsky's work, although I have seen instances of much worse pillorying of scientific pioneers of towering standing today.

However, those unprofessional reactions did not make Velikovsky's hypotheses correct, and as I performed the study since 2002 that culminated in my big essay, I could increasingly tell that Velikovsky's claims were invalid. In fact, the only claim that he made that I take very seriously was that past trauma has cast a pall over human consciousness, as a kind of PTSD, and I will not deny that, but I strongly doubt that it was due to near-misses with Venus and other events that Velikovsky argued for. For one instance of many where his hypotheses did not hold up for me, he and his scholarly descendants have argued that the megafauna extinctions, and the mammoth in particular, were caused by those celestial catastrophic events that Velikovsky argued for. After looking into the megafauna extinctions on and off for nearly 20 years, I do not consider the celestial event explanation valid, and I believe it is far less tenable than the climate-change hypotheses that some groups of scientists argue for today, which I do not consider valid, either. I have yet to see a disinterested scientist look into the issue who did not conclude that humans were primarily, if not wholly, responsible for the megafauna extinctions. Those megafauna were the energy source that fueled humanity's conquest of Earth. Only after the easy meat had been rendered globally extinct did humans begin to domesticate plants and animals.

Velikovsky based his original hypothesis on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. That is not the way that scientists go about their business. In fact, archeologists have spent careers in the lands written about in the Old Testament and have found very little support for the literal accuracy of many Old Testament stories. The Old Testament appears to be a political document that is a mélange of a little fact and a lot of fantasy. There is little evidence of an Exodus or invasion of the Promised Land, and Moses was likely not a historical figure. So, Velikovsky's celestial explanations of manna from heaven and parting the Red Sea are coming up with extraordinary celestial explanations for events that almost certainly did not happen. It is hard to take such hypotheses seriously, but that did not justify the treatment that people such as Carl Sagan dished out.

I dislike using terms such as pseudoscience, pseudo-history, and pseudo-scholarship, but I can see why scientists and academics have used them. Literalist or fanciful interpretations of ancient texts or even more recently history is rife among fringe scholars, and reconstructions such as Fomenko's I consider bizarre, and no professional scientists or historians (especially specialists in those fields) take work like that seriously, but such works can be enthusiastically embraced by lay audiences who are barely familiar with the orthodox hypotheses and evidence. There is an entire cottage industry that caters to lay audiences who cannot discriminate the genuine from the bogus, and their embracement of those fringe works have nothing to do with their validity that I have seen, but because it catches people's fancy and can align with their distrust of The Establishment. Distrusting The Establishment is healthy, but eagerly eating the chaff on the fringes, thinking that it is wheat, is no way to wake up to what is really happening in the world today.

I challenge establishment dogma throughout my work, but I only do it for subjects that I have long studied that survived my scrutiny, or knew about via direct personal experience. Most fringe hypotheses that I looked into rapidly fell apart upon close inspection, while it took many years for me to understand the many ways that Velikovsky's hypotheses were found wanting.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

I came across this today - an article from a mainstream news source, calling out the current economic system as fundamentally flawed, rather than skirting the issue :

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...say-scientists

"Humans are ‘eating away at our own life support systems’ at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years, two new research papers say... [...] ...Prof Will Steffen of the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Steffen is the lead author on both of the studies... [...] ...Steffen said the research showed the economic system was “fundamentally flawed” as it ignored critically important life support systems."

Steffen connects the environmental impact directly to human activity and warns of misguidedly depending on technology to adapt to the changes we're instigating. With genuinely abundant, clean FE technologies however, we can (quite obviously) have a system that protects against degradation. But still, no mention of even the theory of FE.

The article puts carbon dioxide levels at 395.5 parts per million. Back in 2012 I remember Alex Rogers, professor of Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, Oxford University, saying there were claims that we'd already reached 400 parts per million. Earlier, in his 2008 CMN interview, Tom Valone agreed with his interviewer that we were at 380 parts per million, adding that if we raised it to over 450 the damage would be irreversible. The Earth System Research Lab (NOAA) put CO2 measured at the Hawaii observatory at 398.78 ppm in December 2014, and according to this article:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/c...rn-human-histo

the NOAA announced we'd gone past 400ppm in 2013, during the annual May peak... “very likely for the first time in at least 800,000 years.”

The figures appear to be in the same ballpark. I am not a CO2 expert, or a scientist, but the pattern is alarming. That said, you don't need an official figure to see the damage we're doing more generally. Just step outside and smell the air, taste the water, and watch the wildlife diminishing.

Or - with FE, we can grow a world of plenty, for every person and creature. Land, oceans and towering forests, brimming with life and variety. Spring waters glistening with light. Homes set in harmony with the landscape. Ships gliding silently, invisibly through the air, clear and crisp. Rich, dark soils, re-mineralised. Giant broccoli and blueberries, soaking up the sun. Children's schools in meadows amidst the flowers. Space-faring families and benevolent solo wanderers, mapping new territories and studying the stars. Wilderness and grace. Vitality and balance.

Seems inviting. And preferable.

Blessings to all

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Melinda:

Carbon dioxide levels oscillate with the seasons, and they did hit 400 PPM in 2013, but the average for the year has not quite hit it. In the past million years it has bounced between 200 and 300 PPM, depending on the state of glaciation. Carbon dioxide levels on Earth used to be like Venus's, billions of years ago, but weathering, photosynthesis, and a gradual decline in volcanism as Earth's radioactivity declines, have steadily drawn it down. It has seesawed over the eon of complex life, but has been steadily declining for the past 100-150 million years, which is ultimately what turned Earth from a 200-million-year Greenhouse Earth when dinosaurs thrived, to the Icehouse Earth that we have today, dominated by furry mammals and feathered birds. When levels fell below 600 PPM 35 million years ago, the Antarctic ice sheets began forming.

About 8,000 years ago, carbon dioxide was at 260 PPM and should have declined to 240 PPM today and we should already be heading back to a glaciation, but the opposite is happening because humans began the Domestication Revolution, and carbon dioxide levels have been rising for 8,000 years, particularly due to humanity's deforestation of Earth. It was still at only 275 PPM a couple of centuries ago, and the recent meteoric rise to 400 PPM (it has risen 80 PPM in the past 50 years, for a 25% increase, which may be unprecedented in the journey of life on Earth) is completely due to burning the hydrocarbon fuels powering the world today. There is no debate on that issue, and other than Hydrocarbon Lobby shills and those they have duped, there is almost no debate that those increasing carbon dioxide levels are why we are seeing Global Warming today. It has likely not been at 400 PPM for millions of years, since before this ice age began, not just 800,000 years.

Valone drew a line in the sand at 450 PPM. 600 PPM was the tipping point to our current icehouse conditions, and there is concern that if it gets there (it will reach it by the end of this century at the current trajectory, if not sooner, and maybe much sooner, as most of humanity wants to industrialize), then we could begin to artificially induce a hothouse Earth. The last time that Earth went from icehouse to hothouse conditions, Earth had its greatest extinction event. Humanity is literally toying with the fate of all complex life on Earth, including humanity, which is what has climate scientists and biologists terrified today.

So, while we stare at the abyss, FE is completely off the table in virtually all councils on Earth, even though it has been around for longer than I have been alive. That is one of the surreal aspects of my journey. Godzilla knows that he is playing chicken with Earth, and terraforming Mars is one of his contingency plans. The insanity is at insane levels.

I realized that no group on Earth even supported the idea of FE, other than the tiny FE community, and it is in a state of arrested development, which is why I am trying to do it the "choir" way. We will see how it goes.

Best,

Wade