[yor_on]

You don't have the grids, you don't have the energy, power plants, you don't have the rare earths and minerals, you don't have the storage solutions.

What you have is a lot of empty talk and lies.

[yor_on]

And a willingness to keep silent about what it does to those first hit.


human behaviors


But global warming becomes exceptional in that you keeping your mouth shut will take yourself with them.
=



It holds for a lot more than just global warming that sentence, f.ex genocides. But letting global warming run free is a tombstone for us.

[yor_on]

We never, ever, meet anything alike this. And it's global, and the longer you wait the less chance of changing anything.

[yor_on]

it's just fifteen years away, my biggest prediction, and you're getting there.

[yor_on]

How far you're ready to go, to save that face?

Ask Ursula

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250319-rocked-by-trump-eu-seeks-to-kickstart-defence-push

[yor_on]

https://www.miningmx.com/top-story/61150-warfare-reshaping-critical-minerals-demand-says-friedland/

[yor_on]

Kind of sux being you, doesn't it?

[yor_on]

There's actually a lot we still can do, but it's not what you think. And it's not what the media preaches.

A global fossil ban should force start it. Slowing down and backing off another thing. One kid per person a third.

[yor_on]

Things like fossil fuels would no longer be economic under those scenarios. Neither would the way we try to keep transportation.

[yor_on]

And things that seems uneconomic today would become economic tomorrow.

But you don't see it talked about, and no media lifting it up.

[yor_on]

It would wreck havoc with a lot of industries, and with their lobbying.

[yor_on]

And make those excuses for 'elders' actually do something worthwhile.

[yor_on]

It wouldn't be fun for anyone, but it would give us the chance that we don't have.

[yor_on]

It needs a consensus though, it needs peace.


Now take a look at yourself

[yor_on]

There's one more thing to it. It presumes that you can differ between what is basics and what is excesses, and know where your priorities are.

[yor_on]

A simple technological example is the Internet. It's a basic, just as free speech.

'Clouds', data centers/repositories and chat bots isn't

Food water and shelter is

War isn't

Peace is

[yor_on]

You need another world for your excesses, one infinite with infinite resources, running on 'free energy'

That sci fi you think you live in

[yor_on]

Never mind. Here's a fantasy book that I just don't know what to think about?

Surrealistic? Let's see what you gain from it.


"Skill Thief" by KamikazePotato, aka Brett something something?


It's different
=


Ah okay, by Brett Finnicum

[yor_on]

A quagmire of snakes

"Today in the Gulf of Finland, several ships from the Estonian Navy attempted to force the civilian vessel Jaguar to change course and enter the country's territorial waters, according to reports from Telegram channels Dobry Moryachok and RaZved_DoZor. These sources claim that the Jaguar, flying the flag of Gabon, was in international waters at the time of the incident."

https://sea-man.org/news/vessel-jaguar.html

But it was stateless.

So what does it mean? Being stateless?

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2974/unregistered-vessel-on-international-seas-legal-status-and-consequences

Forcing it into port may or may not have been 'legal', if you read the article, all depending on whom becomes the interpreter of maritime laws, and depending on things like that nations geopolitics.

"Because stateless ships do not enjoy the protection of any state, some countries and scholars have asserted that any state can assert jurisdiction over them. But, as discussed infra, a ship's statelessness alone may not authorize such actions."

[yor_on]

If you look at the comments you will see something interesting though

"States are made up of individuals; individuals existed before states, and states owe their existence entirely to the actions of the individuals which constitute them. So then, logically, how can states inherently have any rights that individuals inherently do not? How can individuals who lack the right to freedom of navigation form a group that does have that right? International law pretends to be about fairness, but when you analyze it logically, it's pretty clearly rigged to keep everyone dependent on the current power structure, and ensure no one can become independent without permission.   

Sparkette"


That's actually about democracy. And going after Sparkette mold of mind it makes any action in where we agree on something liable to the whims of the individual. The only thing I can say about it is that any form of governing needs a accountability towards those governed by it. 

A real democracy builds on it.