... Is it worth preserving ancient biotopes and rewilding? Etc. If there is a completely different narrative on all this (which you seem to imply) perhaps just link me to it.

Cool about the planting and battery collection. Do you regret doing it now? Interesting to read the article you linked, always illuminating to hear stories from around the world.

@Doug Webb

Some rich people will always profit from change; some profit from keeping things the way they are. The machinations of (m/b)illionaires is important to understand, but doesn't affect empirical reality.

Even if your empirical reality is due to the media controlled by these rich people?

I feel like you want to make a point, but are avoiding it. The billionaires, paid activism, people having agendas... these are all accessory to the important questions of e.g. does CO2 increase atmospheric energy retention? ...

CO2 is the food of plants. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases - the total mass of plants increases. As CO2 decreases - the total green mass decreases:
Nature: Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend
NASA: Rising CO2 Levels Greening Earth
It's the basics. From this basis arises the agenda of reducing the level of this gas in atmosphere. After all, the more plants, the more food, and the more food, the more population. In the last decade, a Rockefeller-funded institute has developed the sophisticated hoax that promotes the idea that crops harvested at elevated CO2 levels are supposedly less nutritious: #^https://ussr.win/display/5b3f0c60c6eb0137a349005056264835
In recent years, this idea has been actively promoted by Western mass media. The entire climate agenda is a layer cake of deliberate deceptions.
All ‘climate science’ is based on hypotheses and assumptions (people learnt to measure CO2 levels less than 100 years ago, and regular observations of local average temperatures - less than 200), which are presented as axioms and consensual solutions. It is essentially a form of organised religion. I went through it, i genuinely believed in it all, and as a result tacitly endorsed the depopulation of the human population for the sake of nature and species diversity (after losing faith in the climate agenda, i certainly don't think so now)

I studied chemistry, continue to have an active interest in the "natural sciences" and know a few things about the philosophy of science: I use the word "empirical" in its specific sense.

"CO2 = plant food." Sure, as is NPK & water. But you don't deny that increased CO2 increases solar heat retention, increases ocean acidity and decreases human cognition?

you bring up the idea of "the climate agenda" being a faith. The exact same argument I aim at "the climate denial agenda" so let's leave it there. There are beliefs and values attached to the perception of facts. Let's talk about those instead of saying their existence is wrong.

For example, it seems you think it would be good for more humans to exist. Why? How many more? What about the rest of life on earth, considering most people on earth want to increase their material wealth?

the Forbes article: first, I think there is *no* consensus about geoengineering or carbon capture and storage like you say. It could make sense to cut and store wood as described, but unless it was much better argued than in the article, I would say it's a bad idea.

I get the feeling you are much more sure "the climate agenda" is wrong than I think it is correct; that you think it is more unified, and I think it diverse

Also, if you could reply in one thread, it would make it easier to talk.

@Doug Webb

Also, if you could reply in one thread, it would make it easier to talk.

Salut, i tried to answer all your questions honestly and thoroughly. You on the other hand ignored my simple question on the topic to you. Apparently you decided to abandon this thread of communication just when i asked you a question about a specific ‘climate catastrophe’. I confess i have often encountered this before: i call it 'Western supremacy'. For some reason, many Westerners feel entitled to ask a lot of questions to the inhabitants of their colonies, but avoid answering counter-questions. In the spirit: a master does not have to be responsible to his slavs, but not vice versa.

Somehow i got the impression that you are different and willing to be responsible. Was i wrong and you are just a regular follower of the Western European colonial tradition of selective irresponsibility?

I gave you no promise of response rate.

it seems you have a sufficiently large prejudice against people living in the north/west that I'm not going to be able to gain your confidence.

I think it might be better for me to switch medium and do a call, would that be something for you?

@Doug Webb

I gave you no promise of response rate.

Yes, it is. It is better not to make any promises, but just to be responsible.

it seems you have a sufficiently large prejudice against people living in the north/west that I'm not going to be able to gain your confidence.

As you realise, this prejudice did not grow out of nothing, for example, many of my relatives were killed by Westerners who came here ~80 years ago. Now the Westerners are openly funding another war, only to your joy the slavs are killing each other themselves, you don't even have to participate. This is just from personal experience, but if we mention the traditional colonial exploitation of other peoples... Take Africa for an example: your Western progressive ‘renewable energy’ is built on rare earth fossil resources, for example, cobalt mining for climate concerned Westerners is still done with the active participation of child slave labour:
For example, the progressive european recycling of obsolete electronics is done through financial fraud when your technological rubbish is shipped to Ghana:
"Although Africa generates the least of this waste, the continent has been the dumping ground for e-waste from the developed world. The flow of hazardous waste from the prosperous ‘Global North’ to the impoverished ‘Global South’ is termed “toxic colonialism”." - those are not my words, that's a quote from this academic paper.

But of course, the prejudice is mine, not yours. After all, I'm just some Slav, and you are a progressive Westerner, thinking hard about how to build a better society, but who doesn't think it's necessary to be responsible for your statements. I don't deny my prejudice, but i can justify it in detail, there are reasons for it (above are just isolated examples).

I think it might be better for me to switch medium and do a call, would that be something for you?

Please, before you ask me new and new questions, please answer my question to you beforehand, which you ignored. I perceive such demonstrative irresponsibility as a demonstration of Western supremacy. If i answer your new questions after you ignore mine - by doing so i will accept your hierarchy in which you are the master and i am the slave. I wouldn't want that. So please try to maintain equal and peer-to-peer communication without trying to demonstrate your superiority.

...

Also, if you could reply in one thread, it would make it easier to talk.
(as you can see, here i am asking you to do what you asked me to do earlier: try to treat others as you would like to be treated)

but I did reply in one thread?

@Doug Webb

but I did reply in one thread?

You have created three new threads by responding to one comment of mine.

Please, before you ask me new and new questions, please answer my question to you beforehand, which you ignored. I perceive such demonstrative irresponsibility as a demonstration of Western supremacy. If i answer your new questions after you ignore mine - by doing so i will accept your hierarchy in which you are the master and i am the slave. I wouldn't want that. So please try to maintain equal and peer-to-peer communication without trying to demonstrate your superiority.

no, I wrote three message in one thread. Not so important.

You copy-pasted that whole section, don't do that.

I'm not going answer any of your questions, so long as you hold me accountable for the (very real) crimes of the west.

@Doug Webb

I'm not going answer any of your questions,

You are a true Westerner, your ancestors would be proud of the way you treat slavs from your colonies: you ask them questions, you get detailed answers, but you don't consider yourself worthy to act reciprocally. This is your inherited privilege: not answering for your words to someone below you in the colonial hierarchy.

so long as you hold me accountable for the (very real) crimes of the west.

I didn't hold you accountable for the (very real) crimes of the West at all, but given your irresponsibility it seems that you have something to hide for some reason. Or is it really just a demonstration of your colonial superiority on your part. In any case, irresponsibility is what you clearly consciously prefer in this case instead of responsibility, this is typical behaviour for Westerners in such situations, rarely is it otherwise.

so I'm a privileged Westerner. Do you still want to talk?

@Doug Webb

so I'm a privileged Westerner. Do you still want to talk?

Yes, it's good that you admit it and don't try to deceive. Unlike you, most other Westerners try to hide their inherited colonial privileges.

Please answer my question that i asked you earlier. Please do not remain unresponsible.

I genuinely don't know which question(s) you are referring to, could you please restate.

And please, leave the side comments.

@Doug Webb

I genuinely don't know which question(s) you are referring to, could you please restate.

Are you familiar with climate change in the Aral Sea? Please summarise what you know about this topic and afterwards i will likely tell you that it's a hoax and what's behind it.

I am unfamiliar with the Aral Sea generally. What I've picked up over the years it that it's shrunk dramatically. I presume that's due to desertification, but perhaps river diversion. I'm not sure what the salinity of the Sea is/was. I'll skim the wikipedia article now.

english wikipedia implies the primary factor to be river diversion:

"The water from the diverted Syr Darya river is used to irrigate about two million hectares (5,000,000 acres) of farmland in the Ferghana Valley."

Hello, Doug. I replied to you and was waiting for a reply, but it seems the mastodon did not inform you of my reply about Aral sea:

https://ussr.win/display/e4113a70-0728-4b4d-9c2b-c5c3b599cdfd

Please read this detailed comment on the topic of the Aral Sea, if necessary - i will provide additional information on this topic.

hello Ivan, that's right, I didn't get the notification.

Well, that is interesting! Indeed, the narrative I've heard is much more dramatic, and does not mention the previous changes.

This article was quite good https://obscuredinosaurfacts.com/post/2023/02/01/aral.html I found

Vilifying the USSR in the west during and and after the cold war is necessary narrative for the west, we can both agree.

I will try to get the Kediri article mentioned on the Aral Sea article - any secondary references you might have are helpful.

thanks for the detailed post and curious about other examples you might have.

@Doug Webb
Hello, Doug.

I didn't get the notification.

It may be due to the size of the comment, but it is possible that it is due to censorship. This comment probably won't post either.

Well, that is interesting! Indeed, the narrative I've heard is much more dramatic, and does not mention the previous changes.

This is largely based on the ideology of uniformism. Any change is seen as negative, and because of the prevalence of anthropocentrism (humanism), the cause of all bad things is attributed to man. At the same time, not only coastlines but also river channels are constantly changing:

I will try to get the Kediri article mentioned on the Aral Sea article - any secondary references you might have are helpful.

You can use autotranslate:

And you can book a tour here, this is Kazakhstan:

thanks for the detailed post and curious about other examples you might have.

There is a salt lake Issyk-Kul in the Tian Shan mountains:
Several settlements have been found at its bottom, the artefacts discovered indicate abrupt flooding:



http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/38912/03-Lukashov.pdf?sequence=1

Another example is the ancient maps of North Africa: rivers and lakes were depicted there in the place of modern deserts:


At least partly this is not the fantasy of ancient cartographers, as many settlements have been preserved:


These are a couple more examples of the fact that climate (both locally and globally) is constantly changing, it's natural. But this kind of information is little known and not taken into account by academic scientism. This is because scientism was built on the foundations of christianity, and as an ideology inherited religious fundamentalism.

I could go on showing such examples.

Sometimes it comes to the point where academics ignore natural phenomena that might disrupt their imagined static climatological and geological picture of the world. At the same time, the models of some fringe researchers allow not only to explain such phenomena, but also have an applied character.

Is this kind of information somehow likely to change your outlook and perception of the timespace where you live?

(note that dwelling in the space, without time, leads to uniformitarianism, a presumed uniformity of the past and future)

Ivan,

Thanks for the links. I do hope to be able to update the Wikipedia article on the Aral sea some time, but I must be honest that it is not very high on my priority list.

I agree that many people don't realize how dynamic life systems are, and that most have been shaped by non-humans considering the history of the earth. Related to this is some part of the alarmism.

as for the current scientific community: I'm not really in it, and don't understand how it comes together or not. My scientific philosophy is largely shaped by popper for bio/chem/maths, but I think history/sociology/geology... should be much more pluralistic in their approach.

My belief is still that humanity is shaping the biosphere in ways that are unfair to non-human life not sustainable in the long-run: monoculture, deep-till, plastic waste, overfishing, GHG emission, etc

I don't think alarmism helps, but I do think we have good reason for concern given current trajectories.

Still - and perhaps this is where we can come together - I believe a lot of this has been caused by feudalism and capitalism that was exported globally. Political and social change must come at a deep level, to reunite people with the land near them, in order for the ecological issues I mentioned to be addressed.

I'm not interested in a green prison.

@Doug Webb
> as for the current scientific community: I'm not really in it,
> and don't understand how it comes together or not.

The climate agenda has become part of the religion of scientism. The French philosopher André Comte-Sponville defines scientism as science being seen as a religion, as scientists elevate science to a dogma that they turn into an imperative. In religion there cannot be two different conflicting opinions (but not in science). Guided by such religious fundamentalism, for many years Scientists have speculated about the ‘climate consensus’. Allegedly scientists have accurately identified and agreed on climate issues. But this is a hoax, supported for many years by centralised funding. Perhaps because of the changing political climate in the US, funding for this climate propaganda will soon be cut.

> My belief is still that humanity is shaping the biosphere in
> ways that are unfair to non-human life not sustainable in
> the long-run: monoculture, deep-till, plastic waste, overfishing,

Such beliefs are shaped by an imagined opposition between humans and nature. It is possible that the orangutan community may not consider their species to be part of nature, but to an outside observer, they are part of nature. It is the same with the rest of hominids: to an outside observer, you are part of Earth's nature. If you don't separate yourself from nature and consider yourself part of the biosphere, then many fictitious dialectical problems will lose their significance.

> GHG emission, etc

By the way, you might be interested in this recent article: "A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions" https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V5-1.pdf

> Still - and perhaps this is where we can come together - I believe
> a lot of this has been caused by feudalism and capitalism that
> was exported globally.

In my opinion, even more influential is history. The vast majority of civilised people are in specially designed for them bubble of ideas of time and space (usually developed by nation-states and churches). This leads not only to distorted perceptions of the past and the resulting present, but also limits the possibilities of determining the future. As a result, most of the empowered people see no other future than the one they are shown by mass media (various variations of dystopian cyberpunk). The concepts of both feudalism and capitalism exist within the framework of history.

I separate the concepts of ‘history’ and ‘past’ by the way. History is the Prussian school's imposed ideas about the past. Are you familiar with the concept of the Prussian educational system?

> I'm not interested in a green prison.

But those who fund the climate change agenda have a vested interest in this. Some of them (Alexander King f.e.) did not even hide it and wrote about it in plain text.

"If you don't separate yourself from nature and consider yourself part of the biosphere, then many fictitious dialectical problems will lose their significance."

Do I understand that you see no generalized human domination over other species? Even in the heavily industrialized countries? My reading of your statement implies you think there is nothing humans are doing wrong, can do wrong, since they part of the biosphere.

I want to focus on this point, since it seems really central, and I don't think we can construct a useful discussion if we depart too fundamentally on this point.

Perhaps it helps to focus on a concrete example: what do you think about the mass animal industry?

@Doug Webb

Do I understand that you see no generalized human domination over other species?

Even in the heavily industrialized countries?

Perhaps it helps to focus on a concrete example: what do you think about the mass animal industry?

You ask me three new questions after ignoring my previous question to you.

I want to focus on this point, since it seems really central, and I don't think we can construct a useful discussion if we depart too fundamentally on this point.

I think we can build a useful discussion if only we treat each other as equals, if communication is peer-to-peer. I have already told you that many Westerners feel entitled to ask many questions of the inhabitants of their colonies, but avoid answering counter-questions. In the spirit: a master does not have to be responsible to his slaves, but not vice versa.

Please let's keep respect for each other and each other's questions. Despite the fact that you ignored my question to you (i hope you will still be respectful and answer it to maintain a constructive discussion rather than a one-sided interrogation), i will endeavour to answer your questions:

I see the generalized domination of humans over other species, but i think it's natural since the domesticated primates has the most complex nervous system (with all the implications such as culture, technology, etc in their societies). Since i am not an anthropocentrist (humanist), so i look at biospheres from an outsider's perspective, not the ‘crown of creation’. In this sense for me, the mass animal industry includes the domesticated bird industry, the domesticated hoofed animal industry and other domesticated animals, including the domesticated primate industry. I no longer support such animal industry, even though i come from it (i was born and trained in an industrial town as an ordinary national labour unit), as regular domesticated primate. Of course, in the West, domesticated ungulates on farms live noticeably worse than domesticated primates from working-class neighbourhoods in cities. But don't forget that domesticated primates in the cities of some colonies (for example, in the Congo - i can demonstrate this to you) often live worse than domesticated cows in alpine meadows.

If you don't quite understand what i'm talking about, your answering my previous question will allow me to state my thoughts more clearly, within your awareness.

I won't necessarily answer every question you ask me, and don't expect you to answer all of mine. At least not in the format we're currently using. If you wish to switch to email or have a call, that might be different. I trust this statement won't please you, and I'm sorry for that, but it's the honest truth right now.

thank you for your statement about industrial animal industry. I am of course accepting the fact that we are part of the biosphere. Even if it's not surprising that humans dominate (not e.g. lions) I personally believe the extent and quality of domination is far in excess of what is necessary for our welfare.

And I agree that some humans endure worse conditions than some animals.

I am not very familiar with the Prussian education system, but it did come up when I read "Sand Talk". The Aboriginal author blamed it for making Prussians -> Europeans obedient and nationalistic.