elchololoco wrote

It's a negative number. Fusion reactors run at a loss.

Or did you mean the completely hypothetical reactors that have been "just 20 years away, guys!" for the past 50 years? The ones that require a functioning high-technological industrial base to construct? Hard to say on that one, but at the rate we're going, I don't think we're gonna make it.

In summary, fusion power ain't gonna save us. If we'd started 40 years ago and put Manhattan Project levels of effort into it (instead of trying to kill each other), then maybe we'd have had a chance, but not as we currently stand. Try again.


elchololoco wrote (edited )

This kind of thinking is called "cornucopianism".

"They'll think of something. They have to."

They don't have to.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with a concept called EROEI, "Energy Return On Energy Invested". Modern industrial civilization requires an EROEI ratio of ~10+:1 to maintain itself. "Light sweet crude"--that most delicious of oil--nets you about 300:1. Fracked oil can do you for about 30:1. Solar and wind can get up to maybe 7:1 or 8:1 if you build them right. Let me explain what this means in practice.

Solar panels require exotic minerals to construct. These minerals have to be mined--using fossil fuels--refined--using fossil fuels--transported to the production site--using fossil fuels--built--using fossil fuels--transported to the site where they will be used--using fossil fuels--and installed--using fossil fuels.

This same principle holds true for every other exotic technology that people put their faith in.

The only way to win is by conservation, but the fact that the first two syllables of that word will send liberals into a screeching berzerker rage makes it a non-starter. Thus, modern hypercapitalism is doomed. It's better this way.


elchololoco wrote (edited )

Just so. The right to bear arms is not a liberal or conservative idea, it is a libertarian idea, and statist assholes from both Red and Blue teams get it wrong.

Red Team assholes forget that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right. This means that people they don't like (Blacks, Latinos, dissidents) get to bear arms too. Red Team assholes would prefer that the right, like all others, be limited to rich white men.

Blue Team assholes trust the government to protect them, so they think nothing of giving up the right. They cannot imagine, in the postracial, inclusive society that exists in their heads today, that violence might ever be necessary.

MLK was only able to do what he did because of the Black Panthers lurking in the background. There was an unspoken threat in his words: "Either you treat with me, or you deal with these n***z." Of course, he was eventually murdered by the Enemy, but you can see where I'm going with this.

Nonviolence only works when it is backed up with some cognizable threat of violence. I'm not saying violence is always justified, but the threat has to exist, because we observe that the Enemy will not listen to words alone. We have tried words, and they have been ineffective.


elchololoco wrote (edited )

Oh, you sweet, sweet summer child.

I feel bad telling you this, in the same way I would feel bad telling my little nephews that Santa Claus isn't real (and for roughly the same reasons), but that is not going to happen. The only reason we've been able to do so much damage to the planet in the first place is because we burned through a quarter-billion years of stored sunlight in the span of about two centuries. Now that the majority of those reserves (and almost all of the easy-to-access ones) are depleted, we simply do not have access to the amount of energy required to undo what we've done. There are hard physical limitations on what human beings can accomplish, and we have only been able to circumvent past limitations by burning nonrenewable fossil fuels. Now that we are running out of fossil fuels, those limitations are returning. Better get used to that idea.

The planet will survive what we've done. Our species will probably survive, but in significantly fewer numbers, and at a level of technology which is limited by the amount of sunlight currently irradiating the planet.

Our civilization--whether sadly or mercifully, depending on your perspective--will not.


elchololoco wrote

Fair enough. I support Bernie Sanders only to the extent of his mandate: to protect the right of every Northerner to direct the course of their own lives the way they see fit, provided they do not harm others or prevent others' exercise of the same rights.

If he refuses to do this, or if he goes beyond his mandate, then he will no longer enjoy my loyalty or support.


elchololoco wrote (edited )

"Our" President?

To use the inclusive pronoun "our" implies that the Cheeto-in-Chief is my President too.

This is not the case. I acknowledge neither the legitimacy of the enemy country nor its demented leader. You can bend the knee if you want to, but don't you dare imply that I have to, or that I've done so.

I acknowledge only one President: Bernie Sanders, the President in the North, who was robbed of a nomination which was rightfully his. (Edit: Even this I do reluctantly. See my response below.)

So cut it out with this "our" shit. Trump ain't my President.


elchololoco wrote (edited )

Yes. 150 is Dunbar's Number. It is an upper limit on "the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person."

Direct democracy by consensus is the only just form of democracy; and this form of democracy does not work in groups larger than ~150 people. Above this size, the group will inevitably have to resort to coercive methods in order to maintain order.

There is an entire book on this subject called "150 Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future", by Rob O'Grady. You can buy a copy here if you like. (Note: I am neither Rob O'Grady nor being paid by him to write this.)

A good review of the book and its central thesis can be found in three parts here, here, and here. (Note: I am neither Dmitry Orlov nor being paid by him to write this.)

As for the "overwhelming majority of other cases", I mean all cases excepting only a federation of autonomous communities with 150 or fewer members, who band together for their mutual aid and protection.


elchololoco wrote (edited )

Hola. Me llamo "El Cholo Loco". I actually don't speak Spanish all that well, but I can muddle through it. I picked the handle because it's fun to say. Rolls off the tongue real nice.

I'm a rabid Northern partisan and adopted Woodchuck. I think New England and the parts of New York that aren't Downstate, NYC, and Long Island should secede from the enemy country, form our own independent nation, and organize that nation on an iterative, direct-democratic basis centered around communities of 150 people or fewer. There is substantial precedent for this in New England's proud tradition of "town meetings", which actually predates the first time we declared independence from an imperial occupier.

I am a geek, a carpenter, an aspiring engineer, a philosopher, and a heretical minister. My business cards give my occupation as "Wizard".

Finally, I believe that free folk everywhere should--being constrained only by purely tactical considerations--rise in the defense of our lands, our people, and our planet, by any means necessary.


elchololoco wrote

It ain't entirely fascists over there. I have an account over there, and I'm a rabid Bernie partisan who quit the other other site when one of the /r/SandersForPresident mods went and systematically deleted every post I'd ever made to the sub, because I offhandedly suggested that we should be killing the masters, not fucking negotiating with them.


elchololoco wrote

While your assertion is true, unless the bill provides for dramatic budgetary increases for public transit and bicycle infrastructure (and/or a free bike for anybody who wants one), it will massively, massively screw anyone who can't buy an electric car, which--let's be honest--is most of us.