General political philosophy discussion

[Bassoe]

What we can probably all agree on is that the modern status quo has failed at the most basic level of perpetuating itself.

• Technological infrastructure is terminally dependent upon finite resources which are being rapidly expended, once we run out of oil and rare earth ores, civilization collapses and can't rebuild.
• Loyalty to the status quo in the form of labor and obeying the law isn't rewarded with access to careers that can sustain a family, home, etc.
• The lower classes literally can't afford to raise families at population-sustaining rates.

Places that succumb to the Bedouins are quickly ruined. The reason for this is that the Bedouins are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization.

Now, labor is the real basis of profit. When labor is not appreciated and is done for nothing, the hope for profit vanishes, and no productive work is done. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.

And by "we all" I mean all. Not even the corporatists on top of the current status quo think things are sustainable, that's why they're going from the carrot of offering a decent quality of life to the stick of automated orwellian surveillance and You Will Own Nothing™ company town feudalism.

Roger’s voice in the dark: I thought it was the leaders, the nations, the corporations, the elites, who were out of touch, who didn’t understand the gravity of our situation. I believed in the sincerity of their stupid denials - of global warming, of resource depletion, of nuclear proliferation, of population pressure. I thought them stupid. But if you judge them by their actions instead of their rhetoric, you can see they understood it perfectly and accepted the gravity of it very early. They simply gave it up as unfixable. Concluded that law and democracy and civilization were hindrances to their continued power. Moved quite purposefully and at speed toward this dire world they foresaw, a world in which, to have the amenities even of a middle-class life - things like clean water, food, shelter, energy, transportation, medical care - you would need the wealth of a prince. You would need legal and military force to keep desperate others from seizing it. Seeing that, they moved to amass such wealth for themselves as quickly and ruthlessly as possible, with the full understanding that it hastened the day they feared.

 

[Marduk]

What we can probably all agree on is that the modern status quo has failed at the most basic level of perpetuating itself.

Technological infrastructure is terminally dependent upon finite resources which are being rapidly expended, once we run out of oil and rare earth ores, civilization collapses and can't rebuild.

No we can't. This is a take straight from the two brain cells of environmentalist Malthus wannabes (which ironically the modern status quo is quite fond of).
We will never "run out" of atoms to build stuff out of. However they are used, the exact same mass of a given element is still somewhere out there. Unless we shoot it into space or break it apart in a nuclear reaction. Its just a matter of gathering them and sorting them out for a new use, and how much it costs. Cheap energy is a bit more of an issue, but that's just the cheap energy. Even when cheap hydrocarbons run out, they can be made artificially. Of course it costs more than the current cheap ones (which is why no one does it at large scale), but there are ways, and once scarcity makes price high enough, they absolutely will be used.
So long story short, there won't be a "running out" of resources on the map like in a 90's RTS game. Shit will get trickier and more expensive to get, but we can't run out of it because with few exceptions its not going anywhere, its still somewhere out there.

 

[Cherico]

No we can't. This is a take straight from the two brain cells of environmentalist Malthus wannabes (which ironically the modern status quo is quite fond of).
We will never "run out" of atoms to build stuff out of. However they are used, the exact same mass of a given element is still somewhere out there. Unless we shoot it into space or break it apart in a nuclear reaction. Its just a matter of gathering them and sorting them out for a new use, and how much it costs. Cheap energy is a bit more of an issue, but that's just the cheap energy. Even when cheap hydrocarbons run out, they can be made artificially. Of course it costs more than the current cheap ones (which is why no one does it at large scale), but there are ways, and once scarcity makes price high enough, they absolutely will be used.
So long story short, there won't be a "running out" of resources on the map like in a 90's RTS game. Shit will get trickier and more expensive to get, but we can't run out of it because with few exceptions its not going anywhere, its still somewhere out there.

we litterally figured out cheap energy fucking generations ago

The solution is there, its been there for nearly 80 years now.

If oil really does run out and become non viable we have had this solution for fucking generations. Yes the greens hate it but if you have to choose between keeping the lights on or keeping these people happy. Well their not going to be happy, and if they make a big enough stink well if it becomes a survival issue they stop surviving.

 

[Bassoe]

The question is, how the fuck do you build a fission reactor without using any oil-driven ICEs at any state of the construction or supply chain? Sure we could solve the problem if we build them now, but we're actively not doing so. For that matter, how do you solve the problem if civilization's collapsed and you're starting over from scratch, how do you make the leap from woodburning steam to nuclear?

 

[Cherico]

The question is, how the fuck do you build a fission reactor without using any oil-driven ICEs at any state of the construction or supply chain? Sure we could solve the problem if we build them now, but we're actively not doing so. For that matter, how do you solve the problem if civilization's collapsed and you're starting over from scratch, how do you make the leap from woodburning steam to nuclear?

you don't just run out of fossile fuels one day, you get a steady gradural increase of prices and pain. This kind of shit isn't a oh fuck we are screwed its more a dawning realization that hits you over a period of decades and years and more and more marginal resources run out.

The russian war by the way had a silver lining of scaring the shit out of the euroes and getting them to actually fucking think for a change instead of being smugly superior to everyone.

 

[Marduk]

The question is, how the fuck do you build a fission reactor without using any oil-driven ICEs at any state of the construction or supply chain? Sure we could solve the problem if we build them now, but we're actively not doing so. For that matter, how do you solve the problem if civilization's collapsed and you're starting over from scratch, how do you make the leap from woodburning steam to nuclear?

"Shit that burns" is something that can be made in many ways. Fossil hydrocarbons are just the cheapest and most convenient with current economy and technology.
But currently and historically, other ways to procure them were used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

Clean Coal to Gasoline Process (CCTG) | TransGas Development Systems

www.transgasdevelopment.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas

Long story short, plant oils, plant methane, coal, and wood can, with some chemical engineering, be turned into perfectly suitable replacement ICE vehicle fuels.

 

[Bassoe]

At what expense relative to gas? How about rocket fuel for orbital launches? The gap between the haves and the have-nots is unfathomably bigger. Say what you will about our unsustainable society of now, but it's a society that puts an iPhone in every hand and a car under every ass. What do 'normal' people make-do with instead?

 

[Cherico]

At what expense relative to gas? How about rocket fuel for orbital launches? The gap between the haves and the have-nots is unfathomably bigger. Say what you will about our unsustainable society of now, but it's a society that puts an iPhone in every hand and a car under every ass. What do 'normal' people make-do with instead?

For rocket fuel for orbitable launches you want a good hydrogen mix, you get that by seperating hydrogen from water, which covers quite a large part of the globe. For regular fuel, coal can indeed be turned into gas it was done during WW2 but for my money I thing the alge based bio desial shows a lot of promise.

Great thing about that is once that gets going we can have our farmers make money creating the stuff. Still in the works but it is being worked on. Ditch the corn though corn sucks for bio desel.

Electric cars are showing more promise as of late but battery technology still sucks ass and it requires supply chains I don't particularly like. You also have solar and wind as aditives but nuclear technology is most likely the best way to go, and we have enough fuel for that to last centuries.

Things are not quite as bad as they seem and though its going to take awhile we actually do have either the tech right now to deal with the issues or its coming on line. The problem is political will too many idelogues not enough pragmatatists.

 

[Bassoe]

Point is, yeah, we have the technology necessary to solve our problems but our leadership doesn't want them solved, they want to take advantage of them to beggar everyone but themselves so they can rule forever.

 

[Cherico]

Point is, yeah, we have the technology necessary to solve our problems but our leadership doesn't want them solved, they want to take advantage of them to beggar everyone but themselves so they can rule forever.

yeah the end of a modern period is an absolute bitch.

It would be nice for their to be a compromise that prevents everything from going to shit but the political class has drank their own koolaid. Id like for there to be a peaceful solution to all this but looking at history....its going to be a fucking blood bath. But on the plus side our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have fantastic lives.

And wonder why we were so fucking stupid.

 

[Marduk]

At what expense relative to gas?

South Africa and Third Reich historically used some of these methods when they had a need for it. If i remember right the talk of them will start seriously once oil prices get stuck above roughly 150$ a barrel level for good, adjusting for inflation of course. Otherwise the investment in the infrastructure is at too much risk of being a loss.

How about rocket fuel for orbital launches?

Some, like RFNA, including the most capable one, liquid hydrogen, are not made from fossil fuels.
Same for solid rocket fuels.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots is unfathomably bigger. Say what you will about our unsustainable society of now, but it's a society that puts an iPhone in every hand and a car under every ass. What do 'normal' people make-do with instead?

And guess who started, and continues to lead in throwing around "sustainability" based arguments for why everyone should have less.

 

[bintananth]

Some, like RFNA, including the most capable one, liquid hydrogen, are not made from fossil fuels.
Same for solid rocket fuels.

Another one is Hydrazine (N2H4). The main problems with that are the 4-4-3 fire diamond, high toxicity, and inconvenient 35.6°F melting point.

 

[Agent23]

Alternatehistory forum is way ahead of you.




But seriously, no, Confucianism failed quite spectacularly. Turns out, sabotaging your own technological development so your leadership can maintain control over your civilization is a really bad idea if your civilization isn't universal and your rivals don't likewise self-sabotage.

Um, Confucian civilization existed for thousands of years, and not just in China, but all over the region.
The fact that it was impossible for one single power to consolidate an European heartland like China did to its core, then turn inward and stagnate, is what probably got the West into a dominant position and what forced its managerial elites and aristocracy to adopt a looser policy where personal freedoms were concerned.

Having said all that, there wasn't anything that totalitarian in Confucius's Analects when I read them.
I think legalism and later interpretations of Confucian as well as excessive concentration of power in the mandarin class ideas are what fucked China over in some respects.
To quite Orson Welles:

"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

 

[ATP]

more than likely it's due to Simon stripping the Royals of England of most of their powers? Or perhaps it's his intense massacre's of Jews in England?

stripping Royals of power is,in most cases,good thing.Look like Europe ruled by absolute monarchs ended.
And about jews - in Poland they have paradise - and,as a result,our towns were weak and economy sucked.England was better without them.

 

[Aldarion]

stripping Royals of power is,in most cases,good thing.Look like Europe ruled by absolute monarchs ended.
And about jews - in Poland they have paradise - and,as a result,our towns were weak and economy sucked.England was better without them.

Depends. Absolute monarchs were not a good thing, but World War I at least was not actually monarchs' fault. It was neither the first nor the last global conflict started by Europe... and you know when Europe stopped starting global conflicts? When it let go of its colonies.

Monarchy was never at fault, colonialism was, but Leftists want to pretend that their "progress" actually improved things.

 

[ATP]

Depends. Absolute monarchs were not a good thing, but World War I at least was not actually monarchs' fault. It was neither the first nor the last global conflict started by Europe... and you know when Europe stopped starting global conflicts? When it let go of its colonies.

Monarchy was never at fault, colonialism was, but Leftists want to pretend that their "progress" actually improved things.

Monarchy - not,absolute monarchy - yes,becouse it created omnipotent state,which could do anything.And such state was taken over by masons,rvolutionists,and other thugs.
King should have relativelly small power,just like in medieval times.Strong enough to defend country with people support,but too weak too become totalitarian tyrants if they choose so.

 

[Sailor.X]

Depends. Absolute monarchs were not a good thing, but World War I at least was not actually monarchs' fault. It was neither the first nor the last global conflict started by Europe... and you know when Europe stopped starting global conflicts? When it let go of its colonies.

Monarchy was never at fault, colonialism was, but Leftists want to pretend that their "progress" actually improved things.

Monarchy - not,absolute monarchy - yes,becouse it created omnipotent state,which could do anything.And such state was taken over by masons,rvolutionists,and other thugs.
King should have relativelly small power,just like in medieval times.Strong enough to defend country with people support,but too weak too become totalitarian tyrants if they choose so.

Neither. Monarchies and Royalty in general are the biggest con jobs that has ever been invented by mankind. All they do is mooch off of their subjects for centuries. They cause more problems than they solve (Points at all the wars started by monarchies). And they do nothing an Elected Head of State with a term limit can't do. They are a mistake the public has made and need to be done away with. And I ain't gonna be convinced otherwise.

 

[ATP]

Neither. Monarchies and Royalty in general are the biggest con jobs that has ever been invented by mankind. All they do is mooch off of their subjects for centuries. They cause more problems than they solve (Points at all the wars started by monarchies). And they do nothing an Elected Head of State with a term limit can't do. They are a mistake the public has made and need to be done away with. And I ain't gonna be convinced otherwise.

Kings care about future of state,becouse it would go to his son.President care about next election/or,in case of Clinton,erection/

 

[Sailor.X]

Kings care about future of state,becouse it would go to his son.President care about next election/or,in case of Clinton,erection/

History has proven the judgement of Kings and Queens are wanting at best. And disasterous most of the time. Like I said before they are not needed.

 

[Simonbob]

I'm no expert on Confucian anything, but the part I heard was an issue was "Respect and follow your Elder", leading to an incredable lack of change.

Heck, China once had guided rockets, flame throwers and the largest, best ships in the world, and all those things got forgotten because they were either outward looking or new and not trusted by the old folk who ran everything.