8
The COVID19 SCAMdemic... California Nears $8 Gallon Gas - Biden Sends Zelenskyyy $61 Billion
- Thread starter zrickety
- Start date
GolNat
Autocross Champion
Well knowing how Chrysler operates, not doing sufficient testing doesn’t surprise me. 2k launches should have been sufficient but I think it had something to do with the prep drag surface and being too much for it.
Keehs360
Autocross Champion
Oh wow. Yeah that does make sense. I’ve seen posi mustangs lift in the front a bit even though they didn’t have the power to do so. Due to how well prepped a surface was
brat_burner
Autocross Champion
That was by far the best one you could get when I was voiding warranties. I look at your engine bay and remember riveting engine blocks lol good times.
riceburner
Autocross Champion
This basically came to me in a dream last night. Not word for word obviously but the ideas. I've been having fucking crazy ass dreams lately, many of them include vivid, lucid conversations. I woke up and basically started writing down everything i could remember. I'm not saying any of this will be profound, new, or even necessarily correct. I'm no messiah, lol. Just sharing because why the fuck not, this is kind of a doomsday thread anyway.
Our homes are an accumulation of turning anti-fragile renewable material into fragile material.
Not only do they remove ~1000 SF of natural land per house that had resources for nature at a time, but they also remove natural materials from surrounding areas - such as trees for lumber, oil for plastic materials, and precious metals for piping and wire. So, from the get-go, the 'footprint' of a house is already much larger than the house itself.
To make matters worse, once the house is in place it is dwelled by 1 to 5 humans instead of multiple members of different species. Humans actively kill any insects and small rodents that dare enter. Further making the human home a threat to nature is that humans are consumers meaning they bring in, consume and dispose of fragile material that is unusable to nature throughout their lives. We fertilize our lawns, which produces runoff which makes its way to lakes and oceans, killing more than the weeds and pests we intend to kill. This is always the case, whether guns killing more than opposing militia, and pharmaceutical drugs killing more than the intended virus.
The process of this is obviously backwards. We determine trees are worth more dead than alive, cut them down, turn them into lumber (wasting much wood in the process, but atleast using it for mulch), and use it for the structure of a house that then also emits CO2 into the atmosphere via AC units, using power, and disrupting the natural flow of water via the water/sewage system. So not only are there LESS trees now to nullify C02 in the atmosphere, there is MORE C02 being generated. This is essentially a snowball to an avalanche effect.
Even thinking of the concrete that makes the foundation of the house: The sand is removed from rivers, which is a fine sand that has been ground down for millions of years and is the basis of life for marine life, in that it filters the water of impurities while providing minerals for supporting life. This sand is removed (via machines which had their own 'footprint' in creating, which consume power/fuel/oil to extract further material from the riverbed, which is then transported (using more C02) to the housing layout. So, not only is the natural flow of water around the world disrupted via the riverbed sand being removed, but also because we pipe and bottle the remaining water for our use, and spray it in concentrated areas such as otherwise arid farmfields. This creates new, unstable rivers (sans riversand) that are also full of manuer and pesticides. The only safe, 'sanitary' freshwater for the world is within our pipes that are only brought to homes, business and farms, but the waste water is combined with our sewage and garbage disposal, and runoff from our refuse and vehicle emissions, leaving basically only acid rain in the long run, which further depletes the ability for natural life outisde of the households.
This is to say, even if we dictated that houses could no longer use wood in their construction - which sounds good on the surface - there are still other precious materials that are simply necessary to aid in construction of buildings insofar that they are usable to humans.
One could say, do we even need houses? Of course we do, as how else would fragile, furless humans survive in cold, rainy, hot, arid conditions without sufficient tree cover? But if we could not survive here in our natural state, how did we get here? Well, we learned to extract and repurpose resources from the earth for our own benefit and that process has evolved too fast for our own good. So, why not just 'go back' to where we (humans) came from? Well, it is no individuals fault for being born where they were born. Rather it is their parents fault. So we are born 'blameless', so to speak and live our lives as such - also knowing that if we do not drive cars, use single use plastics, pollute our water, and eat animals, someone else will - in fact, they are incentivized to do so as money naturally falls into the hands of easily extractable, nonrenewable resources. It takes more work to repurpose existing material, hence the recycling program is 'garbage'. It is cheaper (profitable) to cut down a tree and turn it into money then to take nails out of various sizes of used and rotted lumber.
Finally, we cannot 'go back' to where we came from, as we have deprived our original habitat so greatly that it can no longer support the natural wildlife. Entire species are dying in droves. Should a now sum of 8 billion humans migrate to a hot and no longer self sufficient area to live while somehow creating no 'carbon footprint' - i.e., eating natural plants, not driving, not creating clothes, not using anything more than fallen trees and sticks for shelter, termination of most major life would seem imminent. Not only would it be impossible to expect 8 billion humans to migrate out of their currently content and convenient consumer environments to live in a dangerous jungle again, they would die even if they did!
So practically speaking, there is no real solution to our conundrum. Three issues: There are far too many people, living far too complex of lives, stuck in an economy that only thrives on depleting anti-fragile resources. With any one piece of this removed, such as reducing the complexity of our lives, the economy could collapse. If the economy collapses, the number of people decline. However, if the number of people decline, the amount of precious resources used declines, natural grown increases, but again our economy collapses.
This may be bound to happen, however. As we approach a myriad of risks, like having such a depraved and usable nature that we run into a wall where we can no longer grow, forcing the economy to collapse, Many industries, such as the those that cut down trees to build houses would collapse as there would not be enough trees to cut down, or all trees that we are gorwing are too small, or not even growing anymore due to the snowball effect. Alternatively, those who extract oil to make plastic may need to halt as remaining oil is conserved for critical transport of goods, forcing us to no longer use traditional means of housing siding or other key protection form the elements such as insulation. Rubber could be depleted, or we could use all remaining copper, meaning existing cables must be recycled to become usable again.
Most notable is that as the rainforest is cut down more and more, the land which is depended on for farming crops for animals and the animals themselves will become unfarmable due to climate change, meaning more heat, less precipitation, or more, but more toxic precipitation, again forcing all into not only less meat consumption but really, less consumption of food overall, again killing large swathes of the world human population.
One obvious takeaway based on our history is that the more precious some of our key resources become, the harder and faster the fight to extract the remaining resources will become, further accelerating their depletion as well as the effect it will have on our lives after it is gone.
No matter what occurs in the coming years, humans are obviously able to adapt, change and make the most of what is usable, however for the first time, the leading business models will need to focus on sustainability, meaning smaller population and truly renewable resources. This will mean we would have to build housing that is more antifragile, but also simpler. Perhaps we lose some of our current technology that is only hurting our social media and ability to make heads or tails of the world around us. Perhaps we revert to living in smaller civilizations for most of the world, farming on our own and relying less on plastic somehow, while still using precious or alternative metals for key electronic components that would remain in the global economy.
No matter the outcome, there will be many areas of the world no longer inhabitable by humans, if not for either being too unstable to live even with our current technology, but also in the simpler technology we would be forced to live with. With less global technology to spread the message of how we got to this point, human nature may be doomed to repeat the process once enough natural resources become extractable again, forcing us into smaller and smaller iterations of population growth, until the only population left will be arguing whether santa claus was a real entity based on the amount of books, metal decorations and ornaments from previous civilizations worshipping him. They could learn again to worship the idea of needless gift and success to those who think they have done good in the world, but didn't realize all the bad they vicariously acted within.
Our homes are an accumulation of turning anti-fragile renewable material into fragile material.
Not only do they remove ~1000 SF of natural land per house that had resources for nature at a time, but they also remove natural materials from surrounding areas - such as trees for lumber, oil for plastic materials, and precious metals for piping and wire. So, from the get-go, the 'footprint' of a house is already much larger than the house itself.
To make matters worse, once the house is in place it is dwelled by 1 to 5 humans instead of multiple members of different species. Humans actively kill any insects and small rodents that dare enter. Further making the human home a threat to nature is that humans are consumers meaning they bring in, consume and dispose of fragile material that is unusable to nature throughout their lives. We fertilize our lawns, which produces runoff which makes its way to lakes and oceans, killing more than the weeds and pests we intend to kill. This is always the case, whether guns killing more than opposing militia, and pharmaceutical drugs killing more than the intended virus.
The process of this is obviously backwards. We determine trees are worth more dead than alive, cut them down, turn them into lumber (wasting much wood in the process, but atleast using it for mulch), and use it for the structure of a house that then also emits CO2 into the atmosphere via AC units, using power, and disrupting the natural flow of water via the water/sewage system. So not only are there LESS trees now to nullify C02 in the atmosphere, there is MORE C02 being generated. This is essentially a snowball to an avalanche effect.
Even thinking of the concrete that makes the foundation of the house: The sand is removed from rivers, which is a fine sand that has been ground down for millions of years and is the basis of life for marine life, in that it filters the water of impurities while providing minerals for supporting life. This sand is removed (via machines which had their own 'footprint' in creating, which consume power/fuel/oil to extract further material from the riverbed, which is then transported (using more C02) to the housing layout. So, not only is the natural flow of water around the world disrupted via the riverbed sand being removed, but also because we pipe and bottle the remaining water for our use, and spray it in concentrated areas such as otherwise arid farmfields. This creates new, unstable rivers (sans riversand) that are also full of manuer and pesticides. The only safe, 'sanitary' freshwater for the world is within our pipes that are only brought to homes, business and farms, but the waste water is combined with our sewage and garbage disposal, and runoff from our refuse and vehicle emissions, leaving basically only acid rain in the long run, which further depletes the ability for natural life outisde of the households.
This is to say, even if we dictated that houses could no longer use wood in their construction - which sounds good on the surface - there are still other precious materials that are simply necessary to aid in construction of buildings insofar that they are usable to humans.
One could say, do we even need houses? Of course we do, as how else would fragile, furless humans survive in cold, rainy, hot, arid conditions without sufficient tree cover? But if we could not survive here in our natural state, how did we get here? Well, we learned to extract and repurpose resources from the earth for our own benefit and that process has evolved too fast for our own good. So, why not just 'go back' to where we (humans) came from? Well, it is no individuals fault for being born where they were born. Rather it is their parents fault. So we are born 'blameless', so to speak and live our lives as such - also knowing that if we do not drive cars, use single use plastics, pollute our water, and eat animals, someone else will - in fact, they are incentivized to do so as money naturally falls into the hands of easily extractable, nonrenewable resources. It takes more work to repurpose existing material, hence the recycling program is 'garbage'. It is cheaper (profitable) to cut down a tree and turn it into money then to take nails out of various sizes of used and rotted lumber.
Finally, we cannot 'go back' to where we came from, as we have deprived our original habitat so greatly that it can no longer support the natural wildlife. Entire species are dying in droves. Should a now sum of 8 billion humans migrate to a hot and no longer self sufficient area to live while somehow creating no 'carbon footprint' - i.e., eating natural plants, not driving, not creating clothes, not using anything more than fallen trees and sticks for shelter, termination of most major life would seem imminent. Not only would it be impossible to expect 8 billion humans to migrate out of their currently content and convenient consumer environments to live in a dangerous jungle again, they would die even if they did!
So practically speaking, there is no real solution to our conundrum. Three issues: There are far too many people, living far too complex of lives, stuck in an economy that only thrives on depleting anti-fragile resources. With any one piece of this removed, such as reducing the complexity of our lives, the economy could collapse. If the economy collapses, the number of people decline. However, if the number of people decline, the amount of precious resources used declines, natural grown increases, but again our economy collapses.
This may be bound to happen, however. As we approach a myriad of risks, like having such a depraved and usable nature that we run into a wall where we can no longer grow, forcing the economy to collapse, Many industries, such as the those that cut down trees to build houses would collapse as there would not be enough trees to cut down, or all trees that we are gorwing are too small, or not even growing anymore due to the snowball effect. Alternatively, those who extract oil to make plastic may need to halt as remaining oil is conserved for critical transport of goods, forcing us to no longer use traditional means of housing siding or other key protection form the elements such as insulation. Rubber could be depleted, or we could use all remaining copper, meaning existing cables must be recycled to become usable again.
Most notable is that as the rainforest is cut down more and more, the land which is depended on for farming crops for animals and the animals themselves will become unfarmable due to climate change, meaning more heat, less precipitation, or more, but more toxic precipitation, again forcing all into not only less meat consumption but really, less consumption of food overall, again killing large swathes of the world human population.
One obvious takeaway based on our history is that the more precious some of our key resources become, the harder and faster the fight to extract the remaining resources will become, further accelerating their depletion as well as the effect it will have on our lives after it is gone.
No matter what occurs in the coming years, humans are obviously able to adapt, change and make the most of what is usable, however for the first time, the leading business models will need to focus on sustainability, meaning smaller population and truly renewable resources. This will mean we would have to build housing that is more antifragile, but also simpler. Perhaps we lose some of our current technology that is only hurting our social media and ability to make heads or tails of the world around us. Perhaps we revert to living in smaller civilizations for most of the world, farming on our own and relying less on plastic somehow, while still using precious or alternative metals for key electronic components that would remain in the global economy.
No matter the outcome, there will be many areas of the world no longer inhabitable by humans, if not for either being too unstable to live even with our current technology, but also in the simpler technology we would be forced to live with. With less global technology to spread the message of how we got to this point, human nature may be doomed to repeat the process once enough natural resources become extractable again, forcing us into smaller and smaller iterations of population growth, until the only population left will be arguing whether santa claus was a real entity based on the amount of books, metal decorations and ornaments from previous civilizations worshipping him. They could learn again to worship the idea of needless gift and success to those who think they have done good in the world, but didn't realize all the bad they vicariously acted within.
jay745
What Would Glenn Danzig Do
Akrapovic has had the best sounding exhaust on vws for a long time. Unfortunately they know it and the price reflects it.
riceburner
Autocross Champion
gotta say though, a full VWR and the full Milltek sounds the sex as well...
zrickety
The Fixer
The vaccine court is rigged and the manufacturers are exempt from liability.
We've been over this. Real news you can use.
Keehs360
Autocross Champion
The price absolutely sucks
Keehs360
Autocross Champion
Milltek sounds amazing too
Keehs360
Autocross Champion
Keehs360
Autocross Champion
Dudes going full Lorax for sure
jay745
What Would Glenn Danzig Do
Doing the lord's work for those the skim
Zricks lsd must be that old school family lsd that floats around the festival circuit. Good stuff