Collapse film and Mike Ruppert

[Phlexunger]

I feel kinda behind the times posting this but I only saw the film collapse this week. I saw Mike Ruppert in the Zeitgeist films but never really checked him out further. I am kinda on a Ruppert binge this past week and going through those phases one goes through when they see a mind blowing film or experience a character like Mike for the first time. I buy nothing hook line and sinker but a lot of what I heard in collapse seems like common sense that can not be "debunked"

 

Wondering if anyone on here has seen the film and can offer their take.

 

 

[Dale]

Interesting guy. Did you know he committed suicide last year?

Yes I've seen Collapse. Very good with lots of interesting information.

[Phlexunger]

yes I did know that

That information is sad and kind of makes me wonder what made him do that despite his spiritual awakening

however he was pretty open about going to that commune to either die or commit suicide.

 

One of the best things about the movie and Mike's message is that it cuts through all the bs that other "truth" movements

seem to perpetuate with fear mongering and profit off it like a book about area 51. The thing is though the stuff that is talked about in collapse is believable

based on the common sense that we live on a finite planet and infinite growth is not possible and that being said the predicted collapse and transition are frightening to think about.

 

Another thing I can not understand about his suicide is how he seemed so excited and validated about his predictions coming true

you would think he would want to stick around to see it unfold like he said he did

 

Also the DMT thing although I am fascinated by that whole thing I kinda wonder why a lot of these guys promote "the other side" aspect of DMT

[Tricone RC]

Not seen it but want to, he talks about a lot of economics apparently and I think about those issues a lot, partly out of interest but it's also close to my line of work. I like that he seems to have made the link between our banking system and our need for perpetual economic growth (I think?). It's always pissed me off how we seem so dependent on continuing growth even though early economists (Smith etc) always said that it would be a temporary stage that would end once your particular region became highly developed. But with the rise of Keynesian policy, central banks and manipulated interest rates in the 30s or whenever, people and businesses have basically been forced to invest, lest they get poorer, regardless of the stage of development. That seems to be the main reason we still need growth in the developed world. Scrap that and perhaps we can live with a flatlined economy without all losing our jobs?

[awepittance]

I have a special place in my heart for Mike Ruppert. I was very influenced by his book Crossing the Rubicon, which is probably one of the most credible '9/11 truther' books ever written. His video of him confronting ex CIA director about being responsible for the cocaine epidemic in the 80s is priceless and amazing. The few times I tried to talk to him online he was hostile to me even downright rude. I never bothered to tell him I was Abby's brother, maybe that would have softened him up as I know he was very fond of her work (one of his last Life Boat Hour podcasts of his had Abby on as a guest). Right before it happened he announced he was moving to Marin to work near some of the people I already work with out here on political activism, so the opportunity to do something with Mike actually seemed possible to me even briefly. Anyways I miss him a lot, and probably the best thing Vice ever did was their apocalypse man series right before he offed himself. (if anybody has not seen the Breaking the Set eulogy for Mike Ruppert and you are a fan of Mike, i recommend only watching it when you are alone with a box of tissues next to you)

[Dale]

Towards the end, he had a 'we're fucked' attitude which doesn't resonate with me since I'd prefer to get busy with looking at solutions to problems, and doing all that I can to help contribute to that kind of work (despite having no political power and little influence). But I totally understand how and why he arrived at such a conclusion. Great guy and very sincere.

 

I've never read any of his books but not sure I would learn anything new if he consolidated a lot of his knowledge and perspectives in the Collapse interview.

[awepittance]

the only new thing you would learn is his success in disconnecting himself from the 9/11 truth movement. At one brief moment in ' radical lefty' post 9/11 political land Alex Jones and Mike Ruppert used to be buddies, appearing on panels together and even once in a GNN documentary. After he wrote Crossing the Rubicon and saw the 9/11 truth movement being hijacked by 24/7 WTC7 controlled demolition people he announced his desire for the movement to change and when it didn't happen he announced his departure and severed his ties. He didn't change anything he believed in Crossing the Rubicon, he just saw rightfully the media smearing anyone who questioned 9/11 as a crazy person, didn't fault the media for it but instead thought the movement fucked itself, and he was kind of right I think.

I think the reason why his 9/11 views are important is because from what I saw they were formative in leading him to many of the Collapse conclusions. Crossing the Rubicon is half about peak oil not just a typical truther book.

[Phlexunger]

the only new thing you would learn is his success in disconnecting himself from the 9/11 truth movement. At one brief moment in ' radical lefty' post 9/11 political land Alex Jones and Mike Ruppert used to be buddies, appearing on panels together and even once in a GNN documentary. After he wrote Crossing the Rubicon and saw the 9/11 truth movement being hijacked by 24/7 WTC7 controlled demolition people he announced his desire for the movement to change and when it didn't happen he announced his departure and severed his ties. He didn't change anything he believed in Crossing the Rubicon, he just saw rightfully the media smearing anyone who questioned 9/11 as a crazy person, didn't fault the media for it but instead thought the movement fucked itself, and he was kind of right I think.

 

I think the reason why his 9/11 views are important is because from what I saw they were formative in leading him to many of the Collapse conclusions. Crossing the Rubicon is half about peak oil not just a typical truther book.

 

I feel like I have come to these same conclusions that you have about Mike I should say though that this Mike Ruppert binge I have been on is peppered with a lot of the Fresco lectures and I think this was all rekindled from me recommending a very backwards cousin to watch the Zeitgeist films because after seeing him at a wake he was talking a mixed bag of mixed up theories that ran the gamut from god is dead to alien Sumerians birthing the human race to various other intellectual concepts expressed through the mouth of an Italian american with out of whack values from Bensonhurst Brooklyn. After recommending he watch the Z films I thought it has been a while since I watched them so I decided to re watch them in case he wanted to discuss them. That brought me back down the rabbit hole which usually leads to a bad place and certainly alienates me from most around me.......

 

However this always leaves me in the same place thinking what will the collapse be like ?

Is it coming soon ?

Will being prepared even matter ?

Will I loose my drum machines ?

 

As irrelevant as those questions might be

my main attraction to this money system ending is a hope to be in a position where I can make music and not have to think about

supporting myself by other means which detract from the time and focus needed to get where I want to get with music

I am sure most of us here feel this way.

The other aspect is how will music making be different when we don't have to think about a bottom line

 

It's thoughts like this that would probably leave me lost in something like the Venus Project

but your interaction with Mike does not surprise me and I often think if I tried to talk to Jacques Fresco he would be kind of nasty too

but then again we do share the same neighborhood upbringing but that seems of little relevance in the scientific method

where cultural or sub cultural identification is deemed uncivilized

 

 

needless to say

who the fuck knows

and most seem to say who the fuck cares

but I am pretty sure I care

 

 

Thanks for sharing your stories and view on this

[awepittance]

 

However this always leaves me in the same place thinking what will the collapse be like ?

Is it coming soon ?

i think the most basic answer to this is it's already happening. Peak oil and peak resources are not 'conspiracy theories' or hysterical fear mongering based concepts, they are literal real world physical limitations that for some reason or another most of society has been able to ignore.

 

It will be a very slow downward slide into more poverty, more famine, more disease, higher mortality rates, less clean water, fuel rationing, etc. It will effect the worst 3rd world countries the worst first but will eventually effect the entire planet. Unfortunately there is not much we could do at this point to create a magic fuel source which is able to sustain the world's current energy consumption rate (and that's only the current rate, add on another billion or 2 people to that equation)

[caze]

 

 

However this always leaves me in the same place thinking what will the collapse be like ?

Is it coming soon ?

i think the most basic answer to this is it's already happening. Peak oil and peak resources are not 'conspiracy theories' or hysterical fear mongering based concepts, they are literal real world physical limitations that for some reason or another most of society has been able to ignore.

 

It will be a very slow downward slide into more poverty, more famine, more disease, higher mortality rates, less clean water, fuel rationing, etc. It will effect the worst 3rd world countries the worst first but will eventually effect the entire planet. Unfortunately there is not much we could do at this point to create a magic fuel source which is able to sustain the world's current energy consumption rate (and that's only the current rate, add on another billion or 2 people to that equation)

 

 

peak oil is a real world physical limitation, but no-one knows when it will happen. there have been lots of predictions made, they've all been false so far. we simply don't know how much oil is still out there. there could be 20 years before we hit it, could be 200 years.

 

also, we already have the technology to replace fossil fuel, it's mostly corporatist corruption and useful idiots in the green movement that are preventing its application. and that's only with technology that's 20-50 years old, if we made a serious effort to implement a Manhattan project type investment into nuclear power (both novel forms of fission as well as fusion), we'd have the problem licked in 20 years.

 

there's no evidence that societal collapse due to oil shortages will happen any time soon, a much bigger threat is global warming, and so called environmentalists are as much of a problem in dealing with that issue as the fossil fuel industry.

[awepittance]

 

there's no evidence that societal collapse due to oil shortages will happen any time soon, a much bigger threat is global warming, and so called environmentalists are as much of a problem in dealing with that issue as the fossil fuel industry.

 

its not just oil though it's resources in general. Where do you think they get materials to make cellphones and computers from? Mostly from slowly dwindling of 'rare earth' deposits in Africa. The only 'way out' i see right now is something like more nuclear power plants, but of course thats a horrible idea.

 

Mike and others who subscribe to the same 'collapse' theory aren't merely basing this off of oil deposits, but more of an assessment of the state of all the world's most needed physical resources and really no matter which way you slice it there's not much hope to 'get out of' this pattern unless everybody in the world starts consuming less. Also global warming does factor heavily into the collapse theory, have you checked out Mike's work?

 

 

 

 

also, we already have the technology to replace fossil fuel

we have techniques and processes, but nothing near the level of the rate of fossil fuel we are consuming right now. to 'switch' over to renewable energy resources would require such a drastic re-education across the globe, i do not have much hope.

 

its just a matter of debating just how fucked we are, not that we *are* indeed fucked

[awepittance]

was a little bummed out the movie Kill the Messenger about Gary Webb seemed to almost intentionally omit Mike confronting the CIA director in south central LA ( i saw omit because they show large sections of the town hall raw footage at the end of the movie and even mention that the CIA director retired right after, most people agree he retired because of Mike's confrontation). I guess he's too controversial of a figure, but in a way it sort of defeats the moral theme of the movie. Anyways for those who haven't seen how Mike Ruppert got his name on the map check this out

we need more Gary Webb's and Mike Ruppert's today, without them the scene feels very empty

[caze]

 

its not just oil though it's resources in general. Where do you think they get materials to make cellphones and computers from? Mostly from slowly dwindling of 'rare earth' deposits in Africa. The only 'way out' i see right now is something like more nuclear power plants, but of course thats a horrible idea.

 

Levels of rare earth deposits are also also an unkown. But even if it did become a pressing problem there are multiple solutions to that as well, from mining the moon or asteroids (which we'll be doing anyway within 50 years), to advances in condensed matter physics, or even simply better re-use of the materials we've already extracted (can't do that with fossil fuels, but metals are fairly easy to recycle in principle, and if the resources start dwindling it'll quickly become economical.

 

Why 'of course that's a horrible idea'? Nuclear power is by some margin the safest form of power generation aside from solar we have (wind power kills more people per MWH ffs).

 

Mike and others who subscribe to the same 'collapse' theory aren't merely basing this off of oil deposits, but more of an assessment of the state of all the world's most needed physical resources and really no matter which way you slice it there's not much hope to 'get out of' this pattern unless everybody in the world starts consuming less. Also global warming does factor heavily into the collapse theory, have you checked out Mike's work?

 

A cursory glance, seems like fairly typical connect-the-dots conspiracy theory.

 

its just a matter of debating just how fucked we are, not that we *are* indeed fuckedwe have techniques and processes, but nothing near the level of the rate of fossil fuel we are consuming right now. to 'switch' over to renewable energy resources would require such a drastic re-education across the globe, i do not have much hope.

 

Switching to so-called renewables would be a terrible idea, it's basically a non-starter. Wind is mostly a complete waste of time, solar could probably provide a decent chunk of worldwide supply with increases in conversion efficiency (and there's some promising work being done in that area), but massive investments in grid transmission technology would also be needed and that level of capital investment would be far more effective if ploughed into nuclear. Hydro is geographically limited, but also environmentally devastating, makes sense to use what we already have there but not much room for growth. Geothermal and tidal are also geographically limited with worrying environmental impact. Bio-fuel is horrendously damaging environmentally, we need to cut down on cultivated land, not increase it, and reforest on a big scale (which is essential to prevent desertification). The only solution is the immediate phasing out of all coal and oil, existing hydro and new nuclear for all baseload, limited use of gas and pumped storage (and other novel storage systems) for use with renewables for the rest.

It's probably too late to prevent a serious amount of damage (with millions of people likely to be displaced - if not tens of millions or more, and billions in economic damage throughout the world), and it doesn't look likely anything will be done any time soon (especially with ignorant environmentalists doing their best to drag us all back to the stone age with their farcical notions of 'sustainability'). We can adjust to the currently limited changes (compared to what's possible) that are almost inevitable at this stage, but we can't continue to do nothing for too much longer.

There's always the completely unpredictable nature of technological development to consider, there's a reasonable chance some guy will come up with something that'll sort everything out in a couple of years.

[awepittance]

I can probably thoughtfully address all the points you've made and try to convince you that Mike isn't crazy but I've already personally been convinced and not really interested in taking the time. There was a while where Mike's theories were very interesting to me but i thought they were too dire, exaggerated and fear mongering until i spoke personally to different people both working in mid levels of the US government, one in the DOE and another in the State dept who told me shit (in one instance burying a report that spelled out in stark terms known natural gas deposit amounts because they didn't want to make the companies they do their bidding for upset) that scared me *more* than anything mike ruppert has ever said. So yeah this is a real problem, people on the inside know but their hands are tied and they are just watching it all far apart like everyone else ( they just cant talk about it publicly). Major corporations are having a freakout right now just about the California water crisis, it's super serious and no one has found anything even remotely close to a solution yet. Just witnessing this microcosm in and of itself, its pretty evident how fragile our system actually is. The only 'solution' is a full conversion to self sustainable living, anything short of that is only a bandaid

[caze]

lol

[awepittance]

it may seem lol but when a DOE employee writes a report that gets totally buried and starts getting bizarre veiled threats from the Secretary of State's chief of staff, shit's not funny anymore. The guy in question who I will not name is very level headed, rational and not the paranoid type of guy but after this incident he started actually worrying his phones were being tapped and shit, this is the fine line we walk in a soft totalitarian system.

[caze]

I was lol because I don't believe you.

 

Peak oil is just not a problem, sorry (and that's what's really worrying!). I don't care what you've 'heard', and I certainly don't see why I should believe it.

 

If you don't want to (or can't) poke holes in anything I've said above, fine, we've all got better things to do, I understand.

The only 'solution' is a full conversion to self sustainable living, anything short of that is only a bandaid

 

So called sustainability implemented on a global scale would require mass genocide. You cool with that?

[chenGOD]

 

 

Switching to so-called renewables would be a terrible idea, it's basically a non-starter. Wind is mostly a complete waste of time, solar could probably provide a decent chunk of worldwide supply with increases in conversion efficiency (and there's some promising work being done in that area), but massive investments in grid transmission technology would also be needed and that level of capital investment would be far more effective if ploughed into nuclear. Hydro is geographically limited, but also environmentally devastating, makes sense to use what we already have there but not much room for growth. Geothermal and tidal are also geographically limited with worrying environmental impact. Bio-fuel is horrendously damaging environmentally, we need to cut down on cultivated land, not increase it, and reforest on a big scale (which is essential to prevent desertification). The only solution is the immediate phasing out of all coal and oil, existing hydro and new nuclear for all baseload, limited use of gas and pumped storage (and other novel storage systems) for use with renewables for the rest.

It's probably too late to prevent a serious amount of damage (with millions of people likely to be displaced - if not tens of millions or more, and billions in economic damage throughout the world), and it doesn't look likely anything will be done any time soon (especially with ignorant environmentalists doing their best to drag us all back to the stone age with their farcical notions of 'sustainability'). We can adjust to the currently limited changes (compared to what's possible) that are almost inevitable at this stage, but we can't continue to do nothing for too much longer.

There's always the completely unpredictable nature of technological development to consider, there's a reasonable chance some guy will come up with something that'll sort everything out in a couple of years.

 

 

Trying to deny that we have problems with resource limitations and allocation is not helpful.

Wind is not useless, it's a developing tech that can provide significant portions of energy usage. Up to 10% of Germany's energy comes from wind. The input has no cost, so once efficiency is improved, it's a win. Solar was also derided as a waste of time, no one serious about energy derides it now. I agree with other cleantech being not great, although run of the river can be implemented with relatively little environmental impact.

I agree that we should use new nuclear plants, with better regulation on construction. The problem of course is still what to do with the spent fuel (all designs have spent fuel), as well the environmental damage done by mining uranium.

Regardless of whether we go with renewables or nuclear, infrastructure in virtually all developed nations needs a massive upgrade. We lose so much through transport and shitty grids - but privatized power corps have no incentive to upgrade, fueled (hahah) by their desire to maximise short-term profits.

 

Also if you don't believe that government employees self-censor in order to preserve their jobs, you're really living with your eyes closed.

[LimpyLoo]

Whether it's Ray Kurzweil or Miss Chloe, I tend to be skeptical when someone is confident about what the future holds.

[caze]

Trying to deny that we have problems with resource limitations and allocation is not helpful.

that's not what I was saying, just that all the problems we may have with resource usage are eminently solvable.

Wind is not useless, it's a developing tech that can provide significant portions of energy usage. Up to 10% of Germany's energy comes from wind.

and 10% is pretty close to the theoretical limit, the problem with wind is that when it doesn't blow, or blows too much, or blows at the wrong time, you can't generate power from it. so for every W produced via wind you need the exact same in reserve from some other means (above around 10%). These problems can be mitigated somewhat via pumped storage or massive improvements to grid transmission technology, but that's not where the smart investment is.

I agree with other cleantech being not great, although run of the river can be implemented with relatively little environmental impact.

anything involving taking energy out of moving water is likely to have some environmental impact, tapping riverways may have less impact than tidal estuaries, but you're still going to damage wildlife at a minimum.

I agree that we should use new nuclear plants, with better regulation on construction. The problem of course is still what to do with the spent fuel (all designs have spent fuel), as well the environmental damage done by mining uranium.

not sure why we need better regulation on construction, nuclear kills fewer people than virtually all other power sources, even Chernobyl basically killed no-one (aside from the amongst the clean-up crew), despite the commonly believed propaganda that most people have swallowed wholesale - and Chernobyl was more the result of Communism than anything else. if anything we need less regulation on nuclear, not in terms of safety, but in terms of insurance. nuclear currently requires massive subsidies mostly due to insurance costs, but coal and oil power does not have the costs of their environmental impact factored into their premiums (they've been around since before insurance was required, and they have the politicians paid for so there's no sign of a level playing-field any time soon).

The problem of course is still what to do with the spent fuel (all designs have spent fuel), as well the environmental damage done by mining uranium.

Spent fuel can always be reprocessed, that's the great thing about nuclear, if the material is dangerous it can be used to generate power through some other fuel cycle. Even if it needs to be stored for a bit until we can figure that out it shouldn't be a big deal, there are plenty of geologically stable places we can store it. There are also plenty of alternatives to using Uranium.

Regardless of whether we go with renewables or nuclear, infrastructure in virtually all developed nations needs a massive upgrade. We lose so much through transport and shitty grids - but privatized power corps have no incentive to upgrade, fueled (hahah) by their desire to maximise short-term profits.

mico-generation is probably the answer here, small reactors can be built cheaply and quickly and won't require massive infrastructure investments. diversity is also key.

 

 

Also if you don't believe that government employees self-censor in order to preserve their jobs, you're really living with your eyes closed.

 

of course they do, but that's neither here nor there, I still don't believe him.

[caze]

Whether it's Ray Kurzweil or Miss Chloe, I tend to be skeptical when someone is confident about what the future holds.

 

and that's the right frame of mind to have, as long as you apply that fairly, to both positive and negative outcomes and don't let your scepticism completely over-rule a modest sense of reason coupled with the best evidence available. nothing is certain, but some things are still pretty unlikely, and the uncertain things could be even better than most worrying uncertainties you could have. or, you know, the yellowstone super volcano could erupt next Tuesday.

[caze]

also, re Germany's 10% wind, it should be noted that that is a measure if it's capacity, not it's actual output. output to capacity can vary quite a lot, and I'm not going to look up the specifics in this case, but in Ireland I know it's a pretty paltry amount (single digits most of the time, and we're much better suited geographically for wind generation). you'd want to average it out over the length of a year, but if it reached 50% you'd be lucky. how does Germany pay for this loss in output now that they've stupidly shut down half their nuclear? burn more coal, the arseholes.

[LimpyLoo]

We have solutions--albeit crude, sub-optimal ones--for climate change and peak oil.

 

Well, more 'workarounds' than solutions per se.

 

 

Anyway, I won't be getting a mad max hot air balloon just yet...

[chenGOD]

 

Trying to deny that we have problems with resource limitations and allocation is not helpful.

that's not what I was saying, just that all the problems we may have with resource usage are eminently solvable.

Wind is not useless, it's a developing tech that can provide significant portions of energy usage. Up to 10% of Germany's energy comes from wind.

and 10% is pretty close to the theoretical limit, the problem with wind is that when it doesn't blow, or blows too much, or blows at the wrong time, you can't generate power from it. so for every W produced via wind you need the exact same in reserve from some other means (above around 10%). These problems can be mitigated somewhat via pumped storage or massive improvements to grid transmission technology, but that's not where the smart investment is.

I agree with other cleantech being not great, although run of the river can be implemented with relatively little environmental impact.

anything involving taking energy out of moving water is likely to have some environmental impact, tapping riverways may have less impact than tidal estuaries, but you're still going to damage wildlife at a minimum.

I agree that we should use new nuclear plants, with better regulation on construction. The problem of course is still what to do with the spent fuel (all designs have spent fuel), as well the environmental damage done by mining uranium.

not sure why we need better regulation on construction, nuclear kills fewer people than virtually all other power sources, even Chernobyl basically killed no-one (aside from the amongst the clean-up crew), despite the commonly believed propaganda that most people have swallowed wholesale - and Chernobyl was more the result of Communism than anything else. if anything we need less regulation on nuclear, not in terms of safety, but in terms of insurance. nuclear currently requires massive subsidies mostly due to insurance costs, but coal and oil power does not have the costs of their environmental impact factored into their premiums (they've been around since before insurance was required, and they have the politicians paid for so there's no sign of a level playing-field any time soon).

The problem of course is still what to do with the spent fuel (all designs have spent fuel), as well the environmental damage done by mining uranium.

Spent fuel can always be reprocessed, that's the great thing about nuclear, if the material is dangerous it can be used to generate power through some other fuel cycle. Even if it needs to be stored for a bit until we can figure that out it shouldn't be a big deal, there are plenty of geologically stable places we can store it. There are also plenty of alternatives to using Uranium.

Regardless of whether we go with renewables or nuclear, infrastructure in virtually all developed nations needs a massive upgrade. We lose so much through transport and shitty grids - but privatized power corps have no incentive to upgrade, fueled (hahah) by their desire to maximise short-term profits.

mico-generation is probably the answer here, small reactors can be built cheaply and quickly and won't require massive infrastructure investments. diversity is also key.

 

 

Also if you don't believe that government employees self-censor in order to preserve their jobs, you're really living with your eyes closed.

 

of course they do, but that's neither here nor there, I still don't believe him.

 

 

They may be eminently solvable, but we are in imminent danger from overuse of resources. Plastics, manufacturing, shipping, transportation etc etc.

Theoretical limit from wind is around 50-60% efficiency. Production capacity is then obviously based on wind farm distribution, storage tech, and distribution. Germany's 10% is output, not capacity (sorry it's 9%). Production of solar and wind together was 15.9%. Capacity rating of wind a solar is huge.

http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/data-nivc-/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-2014.pdf

 

Yes run of the river has some environmental damage, but it is relatively insignificant.

 

We need better regulation on nuclear in all phases, because if you do any research into it, you'll find that the vast majority of plants in the US are built to minimum safety standards and there is very little foresight into what might happen should there be an experience like Fukushima. Crisis mitigation plans are lax or nonexistent, corruption in the nuclear industry is widespread, and while yes it's true that deaths from nuclear accidents are very low, it's more a question of what happens after a melt down - how to do you regain power generation, what do you do with all the people that are displaced (living in irradiated zones is no fun), how do you contain the spread of radiation etc. The Fukushima plant by the way, cut costs during construction, and as a result of lack of foresight, well, we all know what happened.

Reprocessing comes with its own issues - and as you note, storage facilities still need to be constructed - and security needs to be taken into consideration, due to proliferation concerns. I'm assuming you're talking about thorium as an alternative, the only other alternative is plutonium, which of course is derived from uranium. Thorium still needs to be mined, so the environmental damage still exists.

I'm talking about infrastructure upgrades to the grid. Transmission, storage, and redundancy infrastructure is all woefully outdated.

[awepittance]

 

The only 'solution' is a full conversion to self sustainable living, anything short of that is only a bandaid

 

So called sustainability implemented on a global scale would require mass genocide. You cool with that?

well the theory that Mike Ruppert puts forward is that mass genocide if we continue on the track we're on now is inevitable, so im not really sure what you mean, i'm just saying an individual learning how to sustainably live is a really good idea not only to learn now but to pass on the skills to children/ future generations. Do you have a rational disagreement just on the very last point I made? Or is just more a knee jerkish anti-hippy kind of approach?