youtube.com
A lecture given by visiting Asst. Professor of Mathematics Dr. B. Sidney Smith at Virginia Tech, March 26th, 2019.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TALKS YOU WILL EVER HEAR!
Previous thread:
HOW TO ENJOY THE END OF THE WORLD PT.2
Lincoln Fisher
Other urls found in this thread:
washingtonpost.com
theanarchistlibrary.org
archive.org
archive.org
archive.org
youtube.com
archive.org
youtu.be
twitter.com
Julian Wright
Here I will address posts made from the previous thread while I was away.
>I think if the oil and gas start running too low they might just stop supressing all the other tech, supercritical CO2 turbines, gravity batteries, maybe even fusion.
This is barely even a remote possibility. It is a possibility, but these technologies, if they actually exist and are in any way capable of supporting the energy and logistic requirements of modern industrial society, they would need to have been implemented years ago and not at the very last minute when it's too late.
>Plebs can use community or their own private generators converted to run on methane produced by plant waste or wood gasifiers, charcoal/biomass briquettes etc.
These options are not efficient enough to support the overblown population levels sustained by industrial society, and would require a drastic reduction in population as well as a radical change in our way of life. There are alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power, but not for this civilisation.
Bentley Ortiz
>I'm with you there. Doom and Gloom get you more attention and licks but I don't think the entire planet will up and die suddenly.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that this civilisation is fast running out of options to solve the challenges that it faces, and all of the presently available alternatives are not sufficient to maintain industrial society and our current way of life. This will mean widespread famine even in advanced nations, war, and yes "doom and gloom" of many different kinds for the vast majority of people around the world.
Jayden Nelson
>a huge scale back of consumerism would be pretty wise right now but unlikely as it's a source of power over the masses.
Consumerism is intrinsically linked to how our system operates and is virtually inseperable from our way of life. Yes, I guess you could refer to it as "a source of power over the masses," but the technological and sociological factors that determined why it has come to be like this are the far bigger factors as to why we can't scale it back.
>As stated elsewhere in the thread, some form of tech elite will exist on for as long as we don't start a nuclear apocalypse and they might even survive that.
Possibly, possibly not.
>We can't uninvent tech and as long as it exists people will use it and develop it.
We can't "uninvent tech" but the large scale organisation that all advanced modern technologies are dependent upon CAN break down to the extent that they can no longer be produced, even if you knew how to make them and had some of the materials available. Modern industrial society and all of its luxuries and technological advancements depends upon the coordinated and strictly regulated cooperation of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people and if that is sufficiently disrupted, as it most probably will be, the production, distribution and maintenance of these technologies grinds to a halt. Within a few generations, they could be lost altogether.
Read these for further information:
>INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
washingtonpost.com
theanarchistlibrary.org
archive.org
>TECHNOLOGICAL SLAVERY
archive.org
>ANTI-TECH REVOLUTION: WHY AND HOW
archive.org
Anthony Wright
>National Socialism with Whites only solves all of these problems. Go to Africa if you love living like niggers in huts.
National Socialism and Fascism are merely political and economic systems that attempt to govern the industrial-technological system. In the past these ideologies failed even at a time when the advancement of technique and the globalisation, integration and interdependence of that global industrial-technosystem were far less than they are today. It will almost certainly fail again, because our problems are much more serious and pervasive than those of race or political ideologies. National Socialism will not and cannot address them.
Robert Wilson
>Ted was a basket case and a faggot, and so you are you.
Kaczynski is one of the sanest men alive and Industrial Society And Its Future is one of the most important documents ever written in the last four hundred years at the very least.
>Bobby Fisher is more intelligent and articulate, and more importantly, correctly identified the root of the problem that Ted failed to.
By "the root of the problem," and since you mentioned Fischer, with whom I am quite familiar, you must mean the Jews. Certain forms of international Judaism who have found themselves in a form of stewardship over the industrial-technological system, whether it be by subversion, cronyism, their intelligence, manipulation and infiltration of powerful countries, or whatever, are still subject to the sociological and technological driving forces of industrial civilisation as the rest of us are, even if you allow that they have more control over it than the rest of us.
Of course there exists a cabal or two of international Jewry that are incredibly powerful, highly influential, manipulative, and subversive, but they are not the main driving force behind the decay of western civilisation, and they are not as powerful and influential as the blind march of Technique (in the Ellulian definition of that term) toward efficiency.
So, in short, the simple answer is that while there is a little truth to Fischer's claims and yours, there is so much more to it than that that if you were to place the blame solely on the Jews, you would, of course, be wrong.
Ethan Lewis
I'll get back to you in an hour
Cooper Taylor
>Kikes (and to a lesser extent insectoids) are responsible for the concept of single use disposable products, and the profit-before-all philosophy in general.
Nonsense.
>We can have industry if we put people and environment before profit. But that requires ecofascism and a culling anyway.
You are completely ignoring the sociological and technological forces that brought all of this about in the first place, which cannot in any way be placed SOLELY on the Jews or "insectoids," who I guess by that you mean the Chinese. Read The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul for the sufficiently in-depth explanation of this subject, which is far beyond the scope of a Jow Forums thread let alone post.
Nathaniel Roberts
>A few critiques in just a few first minutes. Civilization collapsed before computerized artillery and a mechanized economy that keeps Society intact
In this case it will be the "computerised artillery" and "mechanised economy" and the totality of the industrial-technological system necessary to bring these things about that causes the collapse. There are universal indicators throughout history of the collapse of complex societies, and we are experiencing all of them. Technology is highly unlikely to solve these problems, niether is the market or our economies, seeing as how these are some of the causes in and of themselves not the solutions to them.
Evan Ward
>Not just a faggot, but a useless one too. He got his manifesto published and literally nobody cared. What changed in the world for his efforts?
Kaczynski was able to force The Washington Post and The New York Times to physically publish Industrial Society And Its Future in their newspapers back in 1995, at a time when physical newspapers were still widely read. It was read by and influenced the lives of tens of millions of people worldwide, as evidenced by the fact that even almost a quarter of a century it is not only still being discussed, but being discussed with an increase in frequency, and intensity. What's changed, you asked? The fact that it hasn't actually brought about a revolution against industrial civilisation YET is because the totality of the global industrial-technological system is a force far more powerful than one man speaking out against it. The sociological and technological driving forces behind it are far more powerful than tens of millions of people being aware of the dangers of it, because the vast majority of the global population are entirely dependent upon it for their very existence. That's why. You would have to be completely stupid to fail to understand this obvious point, and you epitomise that category of person.
>He'd have been better off and happier just doing what Guy McPherson does, living semi-innawoods on hypocrite lecturing money and using his bogus doomsday rhetoric to traumatize thots into having sex wtih him.
Thank you for proving my conclusions about you.
Ayden Gomez
>THE MOST IMPORTANT TALKS YOU WILL EVER HEAR
no me
youtube.com
7% growth means extinction
7% per annum growth in 10 years is a doubling. if someone says 7% growth is healthy they are lying to you.
Anthony Long
>I've been reading about this recently, the equations they used in their 'climatic models' all start with the premise that CO2 is causing warming which is in turn based on experiments done in the 1800s and the predictions of one single chemistry professor in the 50s/60s whose ideas were jumped on when they saw warmer weather during the 70s,
Climate change is not my area of expertise and not a subject that I focus on, but even I can tell you that this is completely false. Those are preliminary investigations that may form the basis for some of the earlier work done, but they by no means constitute the sole body of all the recent findings. But as Dr. Smith points out in the video lecture in the OP and as Kaczynski states in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why And How, the collapse of industrial civilisation is almost guaranteed even without climate change predictions and temperature increases. So it's a moot point, really.
Liam Rivera
>You are correct, Erroneous Arrhenius
No, he isn't. See
Luis Carter
>That advances in technology will not allow for eternal growth, so long as humans stop feeding subhuman shitskins and providing technological innovation to insectoids, enabling them to breed beyond the levels that their cultures could naturally sustain.
Eternal growth is nonsense. look at the state we're in already and we've been industrialised for only a fraction of a second in geological terms. Supporting third world populations cannot account for the problems we're having alone. Not even close.
Brayden Turner
>You mean living in a max security isolated cell for the rest of his life? lmao
Obviously what was meant was the 20+ years he spent living largely outside the industrial-technological system in a cabin in rural Montana without electricity or running water.
>You worship a man who murdered whites. You are worse than any kike, because you are a traitor. Always shoot a traitor before an enemy, jimjam.
You are a moron.
Adrian Gutierrez
Obviously he was a "Thinkpad enthusiast" and computer related YouTuber BEFORE he took the Ted pill.
Eli Morris
>INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
washingtonpost.com
theanarchistlibrary.org
archive.org
>TECHNOLOGICAL SLAVERY
archive.org
>ANTI-TECH REVOLUTION: WHY AND HOW
archive.org
Christopher Evans
Nathaniel Garcia
bump
Angel Murphy
>green party
Julian Morales
You should listen to the talk in full before having an emotional, knoee-jerk reaction to what you think it contains based on Dr. Smith's affiliations. He shoots down the Green New deal, disagrees with the Socialists, makes no mention of any Leftist talking points or politically correct "globohomo," and is essentially a Ted poster, but a really articulate and intelligent meatspace version of one. If the Greens start getting Ted pilled and renounce their leftism then this is the beginning of something significant.
Watch and learn.
Daniel Carter
Keep this thread bumped!
Ryan Allen
Permaculture and community are necessities for survival of our people.
Jacob Perry
Deep ecology/Eco-Fascism is the way
Brayden Robinson
I cant wait to see the tears of technophile star trek faggots as even the most basic technologies fail and disappear across the globe. You'll be lucky to smelt a sword ten years after collapse, let alone watch automatic robots farm for you.
Xavier Sanchez
Wouldn't a solution to this be population culling?
Lincoln Mitchell
>d-download this terrorist manual, user
obvious psy op is obvious
Carter Johnson
>deep ecology
but im not spiritual
James White
The future we chose
Christopher Jenkins
the problem is even worse, human overpopulation is the first and biggest problem
Henry Cook
Change.
Eli Hall
Sounds like your life sucks
Nathaniel Miller
I hate watching lectures and afterwards nothing seems as it seemed before.
Jacob Long
Now you know why things are going to hell and you can plan for it.
Brody Hughes
How? Give me all. Now.
Jonathan Cooper
>Now you know
I doubt that you know, clown.
Christopher Wilson
Ecofash tribe WHERE/WHEN?
Lucas Williams
bump
Nicholas Mitchell
So what's the solution? Permaculture?
Brayden Robinson
Yours will suck soon enough.
Austin Murphy
Can you give us more information? More lectures? More videos?
Jaxson Allen
I was already very pessimistic about our future, thanks for the dose that made me completely depressed.
Levi Watson
he completly dismisses nuclear power as energy potential the earth has burried
Like it or not, fission or eventually fusion is going to power humanity for the next 10000 years.
There is not a single more sustaining source of power in our reach than the atom.
Blake Gonzalez
It's only depressing if you think the status quo is the way things ought to be. If you don't, it becomes the light at the end of the tunnel.
Nathaniel Myers
Where in Europe (and America) would it best to be when the industrial system eventually collapses?
Central-South France, rural Russia?
Joshua Evans
well fuck, this guy also says that it's game over but for a different reason
Nathaniel Morales
I'm not going to learn how to farm, hunt, build and get water. I also can't teach those things to my children that I was planning to have.
I'm a product of our modern society.
Benjamin Nelson
Where is it then?
Ayden Nelson
That's one possible solution, but you would need to cull at least 60% of the global population just to buy us several more decades with this way of life in this civilisation.
The best solution is to wait until the industrial-technological system is undergoing sufficient difficulties, which isn't too far away from now, and then destroy it. That will eliminate most of the problems we face in one go. Of course, it will create a whole new set of problems, but those problems are far less harmful and severe than those that we face now.
Sebastian Campbell
Unless you're a bugman technophile I see no reason to get depressed. Things are as they are and we have to accept that. The linear progressive view of history we have been force-fed is obviously false and makes us think ''this can't be happening!'', but the sooner we accept that maybe it's not that bad we can start preparing for the future.
Nuclear power still has the problem that we can't just replace every fossil fuel operated machine, from chainsaws to cars to industrial operations, with a battery that gets charged with nuclear power. Another thing to consider is what exactly do we mean by ''humanity''? Are we naive and expect the powers that be to keep 10 billion useless consumers around in a fully automated economy? Big changes will come within this century without doubt.
>or eventually fusion
That's a BIG if. Even if we believe that we could create essentially unlimited amounts of energy, the relative power dynamics and competition between humans continue to exist. There are people that will be in charge. Technology allows power to concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Ian James
It's not a "terrorist manual" you absolute spastic and there is literally no mention of terrorism throughout any of his published works except one line in Industrial Society And Its Future, where he explains why he had to blow a few people up.
All of these books are available to buy on Amazon.
Nathan Wood
That is an incredibly bleak film and if we don't do something we as a species could very well be living that life in the coming decades, or less.
Bentley Nelson
Either we cull a massive percentage of the global population or we destroy industrial society, or it destroys itself and we take our chances with whatever's left. There are no other solutions. Reformation of the industrial-technological system is impossible. New technologies won't save us. It is incredibly unlikely that we will fly off into the stars and live happily ever after.
Make your peace and get yourself as far away from civilisation as possible, prepare, and learn how to live off the land as best as you can.
Cameron Smith
No, but you can read these And you can read this
Jace Wilson
You've got it backwards. Human overpopulation is a result of the problems created by industrial society.
Jaxson Murphy
This.
Who the fuck wants to carry on as the way we are? Every time I go into a town or city I literally feel sick. The expansion of the industrial-technosystem and all of its flashing bullshit and noise is a disaster and the sooner it is destroyed the better.
Wyatt Martinez
Most of us here are products of modern society and are hopelessly domesticated, myself included, but we have hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary traits and we can adapt. It will be hard, but it is possible.
Dominic Cox
THIS.
Ryan Jenkins
I doubt the elites will allow it to just go down like that, which is why I think they'll go for population culling.
They'll probably wait until automatization starts causing riots, which coincidentally is another reason for population culling that they would have to consider even without the other issues.
Julian Bailey
human stupidity and arrogance lead to overpopulation, technology only gave us the tools to do it
and then the whole human "colony" will collapse, after destroying and depleting everything
Kayden Nguyen
The book is one of the most redpilled things I’ve ever read.
Matthew Brooks
Tasmania, late 2020’s
Nolan Rogers
>I doubt the elites will allow it to just go down like that, which is why I think they'll go for population culling.
It's a very real possibility that they will push that button, and soon. It's a discussion that's been had in academia for a while and I know the elites have been considering it behind closed doors very seriously for some time now.
>They'll probably wait until automatization starts causing riots, which coincidentally is another reason for population culling that they would have to consider even without the other issues.
This is also a very real possibility. Automation, if industrial civilisation doesn't collapse before its wide scale implementation and streamlining, will wreak havoc on society. A lot of people will be out of work, there will be widespread hedonistic degeneracy and madness much worse than anything we're seeing now. Psychological and social problems will skyrocket.
The elite would at this point have two choices: try to take care of everyone with something like universal basic income and automated food production for everyone and let them sit around doing whatever they want. Or kill them.
Once automation is introduced and the problems with it are smoothed out, they may feel they won't need us any more and find a way to start getting rid of people.
My personal opinion of it is that it probably won't come to that. I think there will be a war between the western world, the anglosphere and its allies, and China and Russia and their allies. A big one. I do think it will go nuclear.
David Williams
how the fuck could you type this and believe youre r8ght. you have no clue whats possible or how it would play out not a single fucking clue. people like you are a huge problem
Alexander Gonzalez
No, that's not what's happened. Of course there is some stupidity and arrogance involved, but that isn't the primary cause of overpopulation. Its root causes lie in the sociological and technological progress resultant from the competition between self-propagating systems and their subsystems that are largely beyond rational human control.
Blake Evans
People like you are a much bigger problem.
Austin Young
OOOH DIS GUN B GUD
Imma get some popcorn
Henry Wright
>Either we cull a massive percentage of the global population
By ''we'' you mean the people in charge. Or whoever desires to be in charge. If scientists from the PRC are the first to develop weapons on the micro-scale that can be spread effectively and covertly around the globe to take out anyone who they desire, there is a likelihood that the military leaders of PRC might be tempted to be the first one the use it.
I fail to see any other path than the culling. Either it's actively prepared and done by a party or it will be caused as a reaction to the system collapse when it gets unsustainable. My imagination does not show any path where 10 billion people can sustain the consumer lifestyle. Even in a world where free energy in the form of fusion would exist. Free energy would only increase the desires of consumers and accelerate the collapse of our ecology.
>Make your peace and get yourself as far away from civilisation as possible
Whatever happens, this is probably the best way to have any fighting chance to not see our children die.
Lincoln Scott
Tasmania like the rest of Australia still relies on fertiliser imports.
Alexander Peterson
So am I. I'm not going to live in the new world, just long enough to make s'mores over the embers of the burning old one.
Cooper Brown
>By ''we'' you mean the people in charge. Or whoever desires to be in charge.
I mean we as a species. So I guess whoever dreams it up and is in a position to follow through on it.
>I fail to see any other path than the culling. Either it's actively prepared and done by a party or it will be caused as a reaction to the system collapse when it gets unsustainable. My imagination does not show any path where 10 billion people can sustain the consumer lifestyle. Even in a world where free energy in the form of fusion would exist. Free energy would only increase the desires of consumers and accelerate the collapse of our ecology.
I think there will be a war (I mention it here ) caused by the expansion of several opposing self-propagating systems and their subsystems in a competition for resources of all kinds, land, power, and the continuation of their way of life.
Advanced modern technologies like rapid, long distance communication and transportation allow countries and empires (which is what I mean by self-propagating systems and their subsystems) to expand globally much faster and much more easily than empires of the past. When you have a multi-polar world of opposing self-prop systems, their expansion leads to confrontation.
They've all got nukes. I don't know how closely you've been following the news over the past year or two, but the liklihood of nuclear war has increased a thousandfold since the abandonment of the nuclear treaties meant to safeguard against it. Many of the major players just this year updated the nuclear strategies to allow for a nuclear response to a non-nuclear attack. The INF is gone now. Bush scrapped the ABM 15 years ago. New Start is in serious jeopardy. There's a new cold war between Russia, China and the western world. A new nuclear arms race. A new space race. Massive trade wars.
I am almost certain that it will lead to war, I see no way for it to be avoided now whether anyone wants it or not.
Carson Richardson
>try to take care of everyone with something like universal basic income and automated food production for everyone and let them sit around doing whatever they want.
Which means continuins with the energy and resource consumption, which means it's not really an option due to the reasons mentioned in the video linked by OP.
Which means we are back to either killing or elites allowing themselves to go down with the system, and once again I think they'll go for the killing.
>My personal opinion of it is that it probably won't come to that
Certainly won't as long as the military complex doesn't allow it, but I'm not sure if I want to bet everything on them, especially if there is a significant progress in automated military weaponry.
David Evans
Yeah, like I am going to read a terrorists book.
Owen Bell
Seriously, no imagination on that one.
Carson Carter
Thats just climate change.
Liam Lopez
At 54min in he cucks hard for global warming.
"The science is now crystal clear. We have, at best, ten years to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels."
What a fucking dumb boomer.
Jace Hernandez
>Which means continuins with the energy and resource consumption, which means it's not really an option due to the reasons mentioned in the video linked by OP.
Indeed it does. Ultimately it will fail, but it is one option that the elites have in that respect and I wouldn't put it past them to try it. Nor would I put it past them to kill everyone. The problem with culling a significant portion of the global population is that there isn't really one centralised governmental force that controls the entire world, so implementing a cull would be quite difficult and they risk eradicating themselves and leaving others unscathed. It all depends on how they want to go about it. I suppose a global airborne pathogen that is radically advanced could do it. There must be other means, too. Can you think of any?
>Certainly won't as long as the military complex doesn't allow it, but I'm not sure if I want to bet everything on them, especially if there is a significant progress in automated military weaponry.
But you base this on them having any actual control over the forces that lead to this confrontation in the first place (see ), which they don't any more.
In the past it has been avoided through a variety of means, and they had more control over it then than they do now. The population has exploded even more since then. The resources it consumes are through the roof. Consumerism is out of control. The levels of waste are out of control. The infrastructure is thousands of times more demanding in terms of energy and resources than it ever was before. So the stakes are much higher now, which amplifies the risk of confrontation considerably. For these reasons and many others it's starting to go beyond their control. Even if they don't want a war, and obviously a nuclear war is in nobodies interests, they are almost powerless to stop it now.
Eli Campbell
I think your vision of conflict between West VS China/Russia is right. I'd only add that it'll probably be something worse than nuclear weapons. Nanoweapons, biological, chemical, cyber... it's really impossible to say as outsiders what DARPA and Rus/PRC equivalents of DARPA are coming up with. Since it's not only about nuclear weapons and bulky, slow and detectable ICBMs, there's a far greater risk that one party would get the decisive first-strike advantage and neutralize their enemies before second-strike capabilities (nuclear retaliation) would be possible. Whoever gets the technological edge first, should in strategic sense be wise enough to use the edge while they have it.
The Bilderberg meetings are obviously meetings of only low-level Western elites based on the people that go there, but the topics they disclose reveal us that they are indeed not idiots and know what key issues there will be in the future of the techno-industrial system.
>1. A Stable Strategic Order
>2. What Next for Europe?
>3. Climate Change and Sustainability
>4. China
>5. Russia
>6. The Future of Capitalism
>7. Brexit
>8. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
>9. The Weaponisation of Social Media
>10. The Importance of Space
>11. Cyber Threats
ISaIF or Technological Slavery are by no means terrorist books. They should be in the bookshelves of every intellectually curious thinking person. You don't have to plot an overthrow of the capitalism system if you read the communist manifesto, get it?
Isaiah Rogers
The Washington Post and The New York Times have both maintained a permanent link to Industrial Society And Its Future on their websites for nearly a quarter of a century. You can read it there for free, without any risk. If it was a "terrorists book" do you honestly think they would have kept it up there for so long? Do you think they would sell it on Amazon?
Stop being such a fucking woman and read it if you want to find out the answers to your questions. You won't regret. Now fuck off and read it.
Dylan Moore
Give us a summary already.
Lincoln Collins
That man is infinitely smarter than you are. Are you just going to disregard everything else he said and just focus on that?
The only thing wrong with his presentation and the information it contained was the fucking cringey boomer memes he used at the end. Nevertheless, they were right, even though they were cringe.
Jonathan Nelson
It's a dumb boomer who is pushing climate change.
Parker Allen
Very true. The Russians and Chinese supposedly have hypersonic warheads now, which are very fast and which we apparently have no defence against according to mainstream sources. REcently most major powers have spent significant amounts of resources and time upgrading and modernising their nuclear arsenals, so i do think that ultimately if a conflict were to break out nuclear weapons will be used.
I dread to think what fucked up madness the Americans have been concocting in their filthy lairs for the past 70 years. One thing is for certain, if it goes down that route it isn't going to be pretty.
Matthew Perry
Kaczynski doesn't mention climate change. We're not talking about Dr. Smith now, Burger, who very clearly states that a collapse is now inevitable with or without climate change.
You call others dumb and yet you can't even follow a simple conversation on an image board. It's you who's dumb.
Adrian Diaz
No. It's a summary in and of itself, since it was intended for publication in the newspapers. So it had to be a brief summary. If you are so lazy and weak willed that you can't read a few pages to answer the questions you have then you can quite frankly just fuck off and die.
Lucas Miller
You've written a hole book here already. Give us a summary. Or are you just trolling?
Jeremiah Sanchez
Why should I provide you with a summary of a summary? If you want to know, read it. You've got The Washington Post link. It's not going to get you arrested, woman. No more replies for you.
Ayden Reed
>prepare for the doooommmm and not breeds whities (Negros are still not capable of something to prepare)
>i am the mathematician trust me.
And what does his mathematics have to do with what he says? Another bummer all his life teaching "philosophy". Everything that I understood during the 15 years of studying mathematics is something that I would rather not have done and taught everything through physics( google morris kline)
How many "smart" anons wrote here. Remember you DON'T KNOW ANYTHING
Until nanotechnology is reached with sensors in each hole, do not even think that you can know exactly how much coal is on the planet without mentioning everything else. So far it looks like we can live on one coal to thermonuclear, even without oil)
Do not let you fool ourselves with the modern "academy", we are only at the beginning of our glorious white race.
Logan Smith
>gibs me a summary of a summary
How lazy do you have to be to ignore probably the most relevant non-fiction work of our time? ISAIF is short and concise. Which is why I don't think it's even that good when compared to technological slavery which is more in-depth.
Liam Gonzalez
OP can I get the cliffs? Too much to read, and too long to watch.
Camden Hill
You two are really into this stuff it seems. I am not.
Charles James
>shilling lectures
A new low
Ryder Fisher
>And what does his mathematics have to do with what he says?
Mathematicians solve numerical problems. It seems that they eventually get bored of playing this game, and turn their problem solving abilities to problems that are not strictly numerical and far broader in scope. Serious social, technological and environmental problems. Like Dr. Smith, Theodore Kaczynski was a Professor of Mathematics, and look how well he did and solving and writing about the problems of the industrial-technological system. So Math has a great deal to do with what he says. If you want to know why, I suggest you watch it.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
Jose Sanders
have sex
Easton Gonzalez
i was watching and saying "wrong" every 3 minutes. Could write a long essay about why he is wrong in every particular instance and how he manipulates the facts and misuses concepts, switching between definitions while pretending to use the same definition, except the usefull part from the definition he swapped to lead him to the desired conclusion, but why bother if no one will read it.
John Green
Fuck off. It's an important lecture.
Chase Kelly
His main gist is that we don't have enough energy to sustain our lifestyle. And that the decline in energy will be very hard to manage. Do you disagree?
Blake Ramirez
Plenty of people will read it and plenty of people will tell you you're full of shit. That was a very well presented lecture and he is an excellent speaker. It was entirely consistent throughout and doesn't manipulate facts, misuse concepts "or switch definitions while pretending to use the same definition."
Put down the crack pipe, Ivan. Present your "essay" and see what happens.
Gavin Reed
The game of numbers always ends on one side or another, and from the desire of the person who count. Science is an experiment, and confirmation of the results. Anyone who puts mathematics in the first place is wrong.
I don’t want to persuade you of anything, We maybe doomed after all. I’m just aware of the limitations of my brain and the information received. The most important credo in life is the ability to say I do not know
As for the numbers on this issue, you can google yourself thousands of numbers that global warming is good, that the level of co2 will prevent plant extinction and so on. And they look as good as the stories of this scientist.
Luke Scott
True this.