The Immemorial Energy of a Perennial Species!

[Mercury]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BZuZsdIFXI

NEW REPORT: Elon Musk and Putin Discussed Ukraine Before Musk Tweeted DISASTROUS Settlement Plan

I've suspected for some time that Elon Musk is a patsy for fossil fuel interests; because EV's in particular are such a bad approach to the sustainability issue, one can infer that the rationale is to profit from technologies that offer the appearance of choice without ever threatening to displace fossil fuels.
BP coined the term 'carbon footprint' to place responsibility entirely with the individual - and Musk's success is indicative; not of the validity of his approach, but of the environmental concern shown by individuals, and a willingness to take responsibility where they can. Governments and industry are neither responsible nor willing; such that EV's start in the middle of the problem - shifting GHG emissions to power stations still 40% powered by coal, and 40% by gas.
40 years ago, in 1982 - NASA demonstrated technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma. (Magma Energy should be distinguished from various other forms of geothermal. This is not hydro-geothermal - that taps into underground bodies of hot water. This is energy drawn directly from molten rock at much higher temperatures, and with no 'fracking' required.) NASA estimated the size of the US resource alone at over 50,000 quadrillion btu. Global energy demand today is a little over 600 quadrillion btu. And that's just the US Magma Energy resource.
Musk has done privately, for profit, exactly what governments have done by building wind farms and solar arrays - fostering a pretence that any alternative to fossil fuels is intermittent, unreliable, low grade energy - that can barely take the edge of emissions, while ignoring the fact that the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless amounts of high grade clean energy that could easily replace fossil fuels.
And the worst thing about it all is that for the sake of their purblind anti-capitalist prejudice, left wing environmentalists are complicit. They seem quite content to give governments and industry a free pass while proposing demand side impositions: 'stop this, tax that, pay more and have less.'
It doesn't surprise me at all that Putin and Musk are co-conspirators.
The reason this matters more than anything, is that we must overcome the impending bottleneck to secure the future - not back down in face of the threat. We need massively more cheap and clean energy to support a prosperous sustainable future; or the world will be set into a spiral of entropic decline, with ever less energy to spend, to address ever increasing problems. Further, we must solve this problem preemptively - because, when climate change undermines the global banking system, and it will - everyone's money will be lost, and the industrial organisation necessary to harness magma energy will be impossible.

[heracleitos]

NEW REPORT: Elon Musk and Putin Discussed Ukraine Before Musk Tweeted DISASTROUS Settlement Plan

The plan was common sense. The problem, however, is that it ignores the real goal of the conflict, which is to effect regime change in Russia. The West intends to fight till the last Ukrainian to get rid of Vladimir Putin.

... undermines the global banking system, and it will - everyone's money will be lost ...

Not everyone's money will be lost.

People holding (gold and/or) Bitcoin will clearly benefit from the collapse of the global banking system.

Russia will also handsomely benefit, and so will China.

In fact, everyone will benefit, except for Wall Street.

[Mercury]

NEW REPORT: Elon Musk and Putin Discussed Ukraine Before Musk Tweeted DISASTROUS Settlement Plan

The plan was common sense. The problem, however, is that it ignores the real goal of the conflict, which is to effect regime change in Russia. The West intends to fight till the last Ukrainian to get rid of Vladimir Putin.

No, it really wasn't common sense. It was tragically naive. Read the Mueller report. Russia has been working to undermine the international institutions for years; there's no way Putin would respect the authority of a referendum run by the UN. Case in point - he announced days ago his attacks on civilian targets were 'revenge' for Ukraine cutting a key supply line by blowing up the bridge in Crimea. That's a war crime; whereas, the bridge was a legitimate military target. Besides, there's no way Ukraine can contemplate giving away territory to Russia - and it's not in the gift of Elon Musk to propose such a concession. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 teaches us that if Putin gets away with taking an inch, he'll be back to take a foot, and then a yard! Putin is the bad guy; and if you knew anything about what Ukraine suffered under Stalin; you'd understand why Ukranians are fighting so hard against this former colonial oppressor - and why the West must support their right to sovereign independence!

... undermines the global banking system, and it will - everyone's money will be lost ...

Not everyone's money will be lost.

People holding (gold and/or) Bitcoin will clearly benefit from the collapse of the global banking system.

Russia will also handsomely benefit, and so will China.

In fact, everyone will benefit, except for Wall Street.
[/quote]

No! That's not how anything works!

[heracleitos]

It was tragically naive.

Agreed.

Read the Mueller report. Russia has been working to undermine the international institutions for years; there's no way Putin would respect the authority of a referendum run by the UN.

Yes, of course. It is Elon Musk who is naive and not Vladimir Putin.

by blowing up the bridge in Crimea.

Apparently, MI6 (UK) that was behind the operation.

By the time everything is said and done, the economy of the EU and the UK will be history. (Not sure about the USA.) That is now already inevitable. It does not depend on what happens next in the Ukraine war, which will soon become irrelevant in the greater geopolitical picture.

[Mercury]

Despicable Act of Criminal Damage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzW5yCjYqL0

18 months imprisonment seems excessive for two reasons; firstly, because there was no permanent damage - and secondly, because young people like her have been whipped into an emotional frenzy by existential terror with some considerable basis in fact.

To impose a sentence disproportionate to the actual damage caused; guided instead by an emotional disgust at the symbolic nature of the act, would be to engage in the exact same quality of thought that informed the criminal action itself. Only, sentencing a young woman to a minimum of 18 months in prison will have permanent and damaging consequences; particularly - as I suspect, if she is not a repeat offender with a string of criminal convictions, but is instead a good person, whose good conscience led them astray.

This is not a recidivist acting with criminal intent. This is someone who has been led to believe the climate and ecological crisis cannot be overcome; and that the future her generation are condemned to, at worst - is one of extinction level chaos and suffering - or, at best - draconian green government imposing economic poverty forever.

She has been deliberately misled; for in fact, while the threat is real - the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless amounts of heat energy easily converted into base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. NASA demonstrated this technology in 1982. But the technology has not been applied. Nor indeed is it the subject of the 'Limits to Growth' - anti-capitalist political propaganda which informs the environmental movement in whose name this young woman acted.

This young woman has been terrorised; when in fact she could be looking toward a long and hopeful future for herself in the world. Were that so - I suspect she would have committed no crime. At worst, this young woman could be protesting to demand application of the technology to support a prosperous sustainable future - and were that so, would she have committed a crime intended to reflect disgust? I suspect not. Because this woman is not a criminal. But she will be after 18 months in prison.

[Mercury]

Brendon O'Neil says police need to get TOUGH on eco-protesters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrDBr-QNjGE

I am extremely worried about climate change, but these protests are wrong - not least because they cannot conceivably achieve anything. The public are already painfully aware of the threat from climate change. 'Raising awareness' is a wholly unnecessary exercise. The question is no longer: 'Is climate change real?' - but 'What can we do about it?' And "Just Stop Oil" is not something we can do. We need to replace oil with an adequate alternative - and there is one that's been ignored for 40 years by capitalist climate change deniers, and anti-capitalist greens alike.
In 1982, NASA demonstrated the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma. This is not mere geothermal. It does not tap into underground bodies of hot water, but draws energy directly from molten rock at much higher temperatures. NASA estimated the size of the US magma energy resource at a minimum of 50,000 quadrillion btu. Global energy demand today is a mere 600 quadrillion btu. There's a minimum of 1000 times global energy demand available just from the US alone. Easily converted into base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel - magma energy could meet world energy demand carbon free, plus provide abundant clean energy to desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon - such that economic growth can continue indefinitely.
So why are Just Stop Oil - or for that matter, Al Gore, Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, George Monbiot, Caroline Lucas, Swampy etc, etc, etc, not protesting for the application of Magma Energy technology?
To my way of thinking, it makes much more sense to attempt to convince industry and governments there's far greater economic opportunity in a prosperous sustainable future based on magma energy; than it does to disrupt traffic to protest for cold, dark, authoritarian, green poverty - lest we set the sky on fire. The threat from climate change is very real, but the only solution they offer is every bit as bad as the problem - hence "get out of the road you f'king idiot" is a perfectly reasonable response!

[Mercury]

The clean energy economy is gaining ground, but more effort is needed now to reach net zero by 2050

International Energy Agency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNqGdgfsL1c


Slick promo! I wish I had your advertising budget to lobby for Magma Energy - energy drawn from the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet. Limitless quantities of high grade heat energy easily converted into base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel.
Because Magma Energy - as opposed to building (and maintaining) tens of thousands of windmills - and replacing them every 20 years, could not only easily meet global energy demand, but would have scope to massively exceed it. Wind and solar - not so much!

By your own admission; energy demand is expected to increase by 50% over the next 30 years. And because price is actually determined by supply and demand, rather than the costs of production - what do you think will be the consequence of applying a technology with such inherent limitations? Perhaps this promo should include people going cold and hungry. Not energy company executives - obviously! They'll be coining it in!

I particularly love the idea - with EV's, that I'll be paying for you to drive. Your cars energy demand will drive up the price of domestic electricity - such that, every time I so much as boil a kettle - I'll be in effect paying you to buzz along in your smug Tesla. It simply suffuses one with communal spirit!

Of course, none of this will matter, because China and India intend to power the rapid economic development of 3bn people largely using coal - such that net zero by 2050, even if it is achieved by some countries, but will not be achieved globally. And climate change is a global phenomenon. If only there were a globally applicable solution... Oh, wait, there is! I forgot Magma Energy. That's so easy to do!


Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988.

[Mercury]

LIVE: Festival of Resistance⁣ Extinction Rebellion
Extinction Rebellion UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgbXRsfj924&t=297s

4:10 There are no 'Limits to Growth.' That's a misconception that results in a political stalemate that keeps us on course for climate and ecological disaster.
In fact, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless amounts of heat energy, easily converted into base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Using magma/electricity/hydrogen to meet global energy demands carbon free, plus desalinate, irrigate, capture carbon and recycle all waste - it's entirely possible to secure a prosperous and sustainable future.
I can only assume left wing greens have not demanded application of this technology because they prioritise their anti-capitalist political ideology over scientific fact; in much the same way right wing climate change deniers prioritise their pro-capitalist political ideology over scientific fact!
But not to worry; surely these people - who demand everyone else change, will be the first to welcome these facts and adjust accordingly!

[Mercury]

LIVE: Reclaim Our Future - Extinction Rebellion UK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbl__lNIMIY&t=5s

The climate and ecological crisis is very real; but 'Limits to Growth' is false. Sacrifice of prosperity is not necessary to secure sustainability - nor indeed, is it compatible with such an aim. Environmental concern is a post material value; those struggling to feed their families today cannot afford to worry about the environment tomorrow. Further, poorer people tend toward larger families. A policy approach that aims to reduce demand cannot work to secure sustainability.

Fortunately, it's unnecessary. The earth is a big ball of molten rock containing limitless amounts of heat energy. From 1975-1982, NASA demonstrated the technology to harness high grade heat energy (500-700'C) directly from molten rock, and convert it to electricity and hydrogen fuel. The scale of the magma resource is many thousands of times global energy demand; massively more that sufficient to meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus provide power to desalinate, irrigate, recycle all waste and capture atmospheric carbon.

It's not so surprising fossil fuel addicted, climate change denying governments ignored this technology - but I'm at a loss to explain why environmentalists are not protesting for its application. Surely the public would be far more supportive if Extinction Rebellion were advocating something better than turning everything off and sitting in the cold and dark eating insects to save the world!

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988.

[Mercury]

Storm Approaching! Overshoot, the Energy Conundrum and Climate Change

SFU's Vancity Office of Community Engagement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPV7uW7LxFQ

Overshoot! Which is to say 'Limits to Growth' (Meadows et al. 1972) is exactly what Thomas Malthus said in 1798 - in his 'Essay on the Principles of Population' when he predicted that because population grows geometrically - (2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc); whereas agricultural land can only be added arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc) - one acre at a time, population would 'overshoot' food resources and people would starve. That didn't happen. Instead, people invented tractors, trains, fertilisers and refrigeration that multiplied exponentially, the availability of food.

Without doubt there's a climate and ecological crisis, but it's a crisis of the current technological state; specifically a fossil fuel based economy. By applying magma energy technology; producing limitless clean electricity and hydrogen fuel from the massive heat energy of the earth to meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus power desalination, irrigation, recycling and carbon capture - we can transcend the impending bottleneck.

In 1982, NASA demonstrated the technology to draw heat energy directly from molten rock; and estimated the size of - just the US magma energy resource at over 1000 times global energy demand. Worldwide, the magma energy available is monolithic. With such energy to spend we could make the deserts bloom; and grow endless quantities of food on currently unproductive land while leaving the forests and rivers to recover.

"What we should do now" (18:13) is world governments agree to develop and apply Magma Energy technology globally, with the immediate aim of transitioning three key industries: cement, steel and chemicals - between them responsible for 30% of global ghg emissions. This would buy time to build generating capacity and hydrogen fuel distribution systems.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988.

[Mercury]

Government makes fracking ban vote test of Tory loyalty

The government lifted the ban on fracking in England last month
By Nick Eardley and Joshua Nevett
BBC Politics


An attempt by Labour to ban fracking has been turned into a confidence vote in Liz Truss's government.

Labour wants to use a vote in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon to force the introduction of a draft law to ban the extraction of shale gas.

But the government has told Tory MPs they must vote against Labour, saying "we simply cannot allow this".

The BBC has seen a message sent to Tory MPs - telling them: "This is a confidence motion in the government."

A number of Conservative MPs oppose fracking, but they have been told they must support the government or face being expelled from the parliamentary party.

Labour has said the government has not confirmed what a defeat on this fracking vote would mean for Ms Truss's premiership.

"The consequence of making this a confidence vote is that if the government loses the motion on fracking, the prime minister will resign and the government will fall," shadow leader of the House of Commons Thangam Debbonaire said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63313824

[Mercury]

Similar records in OSTI.GOV collections:

Summary - Magma Energy R&D Strategies and Applications
CONFERENCE
Tennyson, Jr, George
In this session, this vast resource of thermal energy was described by Dr. James C. Dunn (SNLA) as an estimated 500,000 quads in U.S. crustal magma bodies with temperatures in excess of 600 degrees Celsius and at depths of less than 10 km. The aim is to develop technology which can experimentally extract energy from a silicic magma body to demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing this resource. Energy extraction from molten rock has been demonstrated in Hawaii at the Kilauea Iki lava lake. The program is showing significant progress in Geophysics and Site Selection, Energy Extraction Processes, and Geochemistry/Materials. The next major step is to drill and evaluate a deep exploratory well at the Long Valley caldera in California. Extensive analyses by the program and from previous work indicate that active magma may be expected. John T. Finger (SNLA) then summarized the proposed four-phase drilling plan. The four phases will be approximately one year apart, and are expected to result in a large diameter well to a total depth of about 20,000 feet. The well design (by Livesay, Inc.) was described in considerable detail, together with predictions of the expected drilling problems. The well design and schedule includes accommodation of not only a substantial time for both program and outside experiments, but also the restrictions imposed by regulatory agencies including noise, disposal of wastes, and consideration of wildlife migratory patterns. Last, but hardly least, was a relation of the well and its drilling to the benefits to be accrued to the magma energy technology. The deep borehole measurements which can, and will be taken at the Long Valley well present a unique opportunity to test and validate geophysical techniques for locating magma, analyzing the geophysical parameters of the site and testing the theory that magma is still present at drillable depths within the central portion of the caldera. Assuming the drilling indicates that there is magma present, the geothermal community will have the unusual opportunity to examine the coupling between magmatic and hydrothermal regimes in a major volcanic system. Seismic, electrical and electromagnetic surveys will be undertaken together with in situ stress measurements. All these coordinated measurements will be utilized in the scientific characterization of the magma and hydrothermal systems at Long Valley and the coupling between the magmatic source region and the more shallow hydrothermal system in the caldera fill. While the pace of the program has been constrained by the available funding, such pacing is providing an opportunity to plan and coordinate the scientific experiments. The program can then be implemented in such a manner as to provide maximum benefits to the technology and to the nation.« less
Full Text Available

Magma energy
CONFERENCE
Dunn, J
The thermal energy contained in magmatic systems represents a huge potential resource. In the US, useful energy contained in molten and partially-molten magma within the upper 10 km of the crust has been estimated at 5 to 50 x 10/sup 22/ J (50,000 to 500,000 Quads). The objective of the Magma Energy Extraction Program is to determine the engineering feasibility of locating, accessing, and utilizing magma as a viable energy resource. This program follows the DOE/OBES-funded Magma Energy Research Project that concluded scientific feasibility of the magma energy concept. A primary long-range goal of this program is to conduct an energy extraction experiment directly in a molten, crustal magma body. Critical to determining engineering feasibility are several key technology tasks: (1) Geophysics - to obtain detailed definition of potential magma targets, (2) Geochemistry/Materials - to characterize the magma environment and select compatible engineering materials, (3) Drilling - to develop drilling and completion techniques for entry into a magma body, and (4) Energy Extraction - to develop heat extraction technology.« less
Full Text Available

Utilization of magma energy: a project summary
TECHNICAL REPORT
Colp, J; Stoller, H
The scientific feasibility of extracting energy from magma bodies is the objective of this project. The high temperature (approx. 1000/sup 0/C) and estimated large resource (approx. 10/sup 4/ quads) within 10 km of the surface in the US provides the incentive for this work. The areal extent of a near-surface molten lava body has been defined with geophysical sensing systems. Improved knowledge of the in situ physical properties of buried molten rock is required to assess the thickness of magma bodies. Drilling into molten lava is a complex operation and requires further technological development. Experimental studies of rock deformation at near-magma temperatures and pressures show that boreholes can be made to stay open. Calculational analyses of magmatic gas samples provide a satisfactory definition of the gas content of in situ magmas. Material compatibility experiments show that Ni- and Co-based alloys can survive and operate in the magma environment. Thermal heat exchangers can survive in molten rock and allow significant rates of heat transfer to an internal fluid.

[Mercury]

​ Evolutionist goes CRAZY when Ken Ham says This | Reacteria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcg8u5g9Y4k


@Peppermint Gal It seems to have escaped your notice that I am speaking from the premise that religion, and subsequently philosophy in the Cartesian tradition, have undermined science as an epistemology; a method and body of knowledge.

Your four comments; written without reply - are difficult to get on the same page. They are extremely unpleasant and aggressive, without making any particular point in sufficient depth, or with reference to the argument I'm making. It's just a lot of appeals to authority and other strawmen.

You write: "Also certainty is measured in relative terms. And for a simple reason, one that has been echoed down the ages by philosophers of much greater stature than yours, including Plato, (calling Plato a philosopher of greater stature than you, by the way, is explicitly an insult): that you cannot ever rule out the possibility you are actually a brain in a jar. Call that "subjectivism" if you like, everyone else simply considers it a plain, mundane truth. God, you sound so pretentious. Go back to reddit."

Yes, that's subjectivism - from Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy, written while Galileo was on trial for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun - using an early formulation of scientific method. I discussed earlier how Descartes method of radical doubt is unsound, because it falls afoul of Occam's Razor - in that assuming a demon is deceiving him is a far greater, and less likely assumption to make than the assumption that objective reality exists - and is known via the senses.
It would not have been available to Descartes; but evolutionary theory requires that the senses are sufficiently accurate to reality to allow for survival. This does not mean they are comprehensive of reality, only that a surviving organism's relation to reality must necessarily be basically valid.

Your write: "Science as a means to prove rather than to falsify has long been known to produce a fallacy called The Black Swan Fallacy. Popper's Criteria settled the issue by showing that science falsifies, it does not prove. This also allowed us to diagnose the exact issue with a number of fields of psychology in particular, (namely Freudian, Jungian, and Evolutionary psychology.) Its been an invaluable meta scientific tool. Metascience has moved beyond you. Sorry. Please tell me this isn't some hairbrained attempt to revive the excesses of materialism. Last I heard someone say this kind of horse ****, they claimed Kant was anti-enlightenment values. Y'know, Immanuel Kant, the poster child of... *The Enlightenment.* "

I contend that science is proven by function i.e. it's true because it works, and it works because it's true. Thus Popper is wrong to argue that there's no such thing as scientific proof; clearly there is, because scientific knowledge can be applied to create technologies that function - and function better the closer the technology approximates the underlying scientific principles.
This seemingly obvious argument is mysteriously absent from philosophy; from Descartes to Popper to John Dupre - they are all, almost without exception dedicated to showing how science doesn't know anything. "But it moves!" The whole of Western philosophy since Descartes batters and belittles science - even as it surrounds us with technological miracles. Does that not seem incongruous to you?

The Problem of Induction, as the Black Swan Fallacy is often referred to - describes the impossibility of proving a statement such as 'all swans are white' against the possibility of falsifying such a statement. While logically valid the argument suffers from the fact that 'all swans are white' is a very poor scientific hypothesis. Scientists don't generally go in for sweeping generalisations; but are rather extremely specific in what they claim the experimental data demonstrates. Nor do scientists begin with a sweeping generalisation, and try to prove it - moving left to right through this process without ever looking back. They will vary the parameters of the hypothesis with regard to the data, and seek further data to explore connotations of the hypothesis - moving backward and forward through this process to zero in on what can be proven.

You write: "Also "subjectivism" isn't a philosophy. Neither is objectivism. Tell Ayn Rand to shove it, she knew jack **** about philosophy."

Subjectivism is a foundational concept of modern philosophy; Descartes is considered the Father of Modern Philosophy. Ayn Rand was controversial because she rejected this tradition. Atlas Shrugged is an interesting book, but I didn't read it until long after I had already started down this road. For me, all this begins with reading Descartes - and realising he was a contemporary of Galileo; who withdrew a work on physics from publication when Galileo was arrested, and wrote Meditations as an act of intellectual cowardice. Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest, while Descartes was appointed to the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. (They disliked eachother and Descartes died of a cold soon after his arrival, but still - the messaging was pretty clear. Blow smoke up the **** of the Church and divinely appointed pan European monarchy, or else!)

You write: "If I sound hostile, it's because I am sick, and also, because I am hostile. **** the world, and **** people who think subjectivist philosophy was ever a proper category and not simply a term used by that hack fraud Ayn Rand to launch an attack on whatever philosophy she felt was anathema to her bizarre, eclectic, elitist political beliefs. Every philosopher ever has acknowledged the importance of both subjectivity and objectivity. The former is that arising from cognition, the latter is that which does not. Simple as that."

Again, this is extremely unpleasant and aggressive, without making any particular point in sufficient depth, or with reference to the argument I'm making. All I'm getting here is that "you know better" - because ....name drop, vague allusion to argument, insult, insult, without any apparent need to explain what you think that argument implies with regard to mine. I make this argument because I believe recognising the truth value of science is necessary to secure the continued existence of the human species; and it is not cruel truth either, but the scientifically and technologically realistic hope of a far more prosperous and sustainable future - blocked by subjectivist and ideological misconception.

[Mercury]

Climate change is a very real threat but 'limits to growth' is false. A prosperous sustainable future is possible, because the earth is a big ball of molten rock. Convert magma heat energy to base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel - meet world energy demand carbon free, plus desalinate sea water to irrigate land, recycle all waste and capture carbon - and we can lift billions out of poverty and keep growing into the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ryPvkjtPeM

[Mercury]

Why are Just Stop Oil protests not targeting China or the US?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkSFB4OQxsk

My question to Indigo would be why the environmental movement as a whole has not called for the application of Magma Energy technology? This technology was shown by NASA in 1982, to be a viable source of almost limitless clean energy - drawn directly from the molten interior of the earth.
Search: "Status of the Magma Energy project, NASA."
Ignoring this technology, the environmental movement have insisted on Limits to Growth theory that implies environmental sustainability requires sacrifice of human and economic welfare.
This choice presented to the public, between fossil fuel powered prosperity and sustainable poverty is a false dichotomy; and results in a political impasse that maintains the status quo, while the most promising approach is excluded by two extremes - anti-capitalist environmentalism on one side, and pro-capitalist climate change denial on the other.
Indigo mentions insulation and public transport; both speak to an assumption of economic sacrifice. She mentions renewable energy; and while not specific, it's safe to assume she's referencing wind and solar. It's certainly not Magma Energy.
Wind and solar are simply inadequate. They can NEVER displace fossil fuels. The UK alone would require something like 40,000 windmills at £25 million each, replaced every 20 years. It's not cheaper in the long run.
The UK has a population of only 70 million or so. China has 1500 million people. India has 1300 million people. Wind power cannot address climate change globally. Further, even if it is 'nine times cheaper' - an analysis I consider doubtful, production costs do not determine price. Supply and demand determines price - and relying on wind would mean huge infrastructure expenditure; at best to stand still in terms of energy availability. At the same time EV's supply transport energy from the national grid - so prices would only increase. With less energy available, at greater cost, in face of increasing challenges, civilisation will fail.
In order to meet the climate and ecological challenge we need massively more clean energy to spend - to meet energy demand, worldwide, carbon free, to desalinate sea water to irrigate land to produce food, to recycle all our waste - both for resources and to prevent pollution, to capture carbon and sequester it in the ground. All energy intensive processes - not possible from wind power.
I'd ask Indigo why the environmental movement as a whole, have not called for the application of Magma Energy technology - and whether putting anti-capitalist political ideology before sustainability is not the same in principle, as governments and fossil fuel companies putting profit first? Please protest for a prosperous sustainable future based on Magma Energy!